WEDNESDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2003 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
                                ____

The Council met at 14:12.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

            CANCELLATION OF ORDER NO 2 ON THE ORDER PAPER

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move without notice that the Council agrees that Order No 2 on the Order Paper, namely the National Gambling Bill, not be dealt with in today’s plenary but be deferred to another day upon which further notice will be given.

I have concurred with the Whips from the different political parties indicating the intention to move such a motion. Thank you.

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

                TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
                           FRAMEWORK BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Madam Chairperson and hon members, the discussions which led to the drafting of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill were sometimes so acrimonious that many thought that today’s watershed development would never materialise. That it is happening at all is one of the monuments to our collective efforts of making our country a zone of peace, prosperity and sustainable development.

Allow me to express a hearty word of gratitude to all traditional leaders, South Africans resident in traditional communities, statutory bodies and community-based organisations which took part in the protracted process of consultation which resulted in the development of this Bill.

I also have the pleasure of paying tribute to the chairperson and all other members of the select committee who are associated with the endeavour which brought us to this momentous event.

The Bill before the House seeks to give effect to sections 211 and 212 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, provisions which recognise the institution of traditional leadership and mandate Parliament to enact legislation providing for the role of traditional leadership as an institution on matters affecting communities.

The Bill, however, does not purport to provide all the details germane to the role to be played by the institution. Such details are left to province- specific legislation to be developed and adopted by provincial legislatures.

The intention of this Bill, therefore, is to provide a framework and norms and standards to which provincial legislation must strictly conform. As we have said before, the architects of colonial and apartheid rule in South Africa succeeded over a period of time to politically disembed the institution of traditional leadership from its natural fulcrum and convert it to an instrument for use in suppressing the legitimate aspirations of our people.

As a matter of fact, there was a time in the history of our country when the institution was almost indistinguishable from the notorious Bantustan system. As we talk now, the country continues to bear the scars of this legacy. To this day many areas which are under the jurisdiction of traditional leaders are characterised by chronic underdevelopment and abject poverty. The effects of the exclusionary apartheid political economy endure in the form of massive infrastructure backlogs and the attendant problem of the inability of many in those communities to access basic services.

The Bill which we commend to you, hon members, approaches these problems from a premise which negates the notion that there is a future in the past. It accepts the challenge posed by the constitutional imperative of banishing intracommunity cleavages, which have hitherto made the goal of defining an optimal development strategy so elusive.

The Bill creates enabling conditions for the institution of traditional leadership to forge partnerships with democratically elected institutions of government. In the final analysis, this is a framework for the institution to retrace its steps and forge a new identity of interest with the people.

Although the institution’s role is primarily sanctified by custom and tradition, it does lend itself to playing an important advisory, supportive and promotional role in matters of governance. It is our view that since customs and traditions are dynamic and evolving, it is not unrealistic to expect the institution of traditional leadership to behave in a manner consistent with democracy-anchored policy approaches.

Through this Bill we seek to cause custom to evolve in a direction which makes it an instrument of promoting participatory politics and social defence of the marginalised sectors of our community. This explains why, amongst other things, we are providing for the establishment of traditional councils, which will include a component with an elective base as well as pay attention to questions of gender equity. In other words, we resist the temptation to treat institutions as fixed entities.

I must emphasise, though, that the possibilities which this Bill envisions will only come to fruition if all stakeholders continue to exhibit the enthusiasm we saw in the consultation process. For instance, this Bill adequately creates conditions for the sphere of civil society to find space for the advancement of popular interests. It behoves structures such as the Law Commission, the Gender Commission and similar bodies to evolve programmes through which they will empower previously marginalised groups to effectively participate in the activities of traditional councils. This role does not have to await the enactment of provincial legislation. If anything, these bodies must empower communities to make an informed input into processes of formulating provincial legislation.

For our part, we have offered the services of a national task team to assist the provinces in the crafting of provincial legislation. We hope that working together we shall be able to finalise all the provincial legislation in the first quarter of the year 2004. Thank you, Madam Chair. [Applause.]

Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Madam Chair, throughout this country’s constitutional dispensation the issue of traditional leadership has always been a central one. At almost each and every major occasion, the issue of traditional leadership has always been addressed - the significant one being the President’s state of the nation address in February this year. Needless to say, the Constitution dedicates Chapter 12 and other chapters to recognising, supporting and respecting traditional leadership.

The Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill in front of us this afternoon seeks to set work in motion so that we deal with the recognition and transformation of the oldest governance institution of our time. Undoubtedly the Bill does not seek to create new traditions or customs. Neither does it create new leaders in that institution. The intention is to restore strength and respect, and to guide by way of frameworks.

Honourable intentions and commitments reflected in the preamble of the Bill are clearly demonstrated by the manner in which the more senior office bearers in Government will deal with the various traditional events in the traditional communities. For instance, the President will deal with the recognition of a king or queen after all the traditional routines have been observed and confirmed to the President. Likewise, the premiers will deal with the recognition of a traditional leader, headman or headwoman after the traditional processes by the traditional communities have been concluded.

Unlike in the past, the Government will never involve itself in the murky business of creating headmen or indunas. Likewise, the removal of a traditional leader will not be initiated by Government, but by the traditional community concerned - again in terms of the customs of that community. Having made these historical commitments and undertakings in order to restore the status and dignity of traditional leadership to its true pedestal, one would perhaps think that the Government would assume the role of presiding over disputes regarding traditional leadership, but no, an independent arbiter, consisting of role-players in traditional communities, handles this dispute. That is the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims. Here again, the commission may only hear matters after the traditional community has been unable to resolve the issue internally in accordance with custom.

Through this Bill the Government also acknowledges some outstanding matters that include, among others, traditional leaders who are presently not remunerated. Having dealt with various Bills in the House ourselves, we should take note of the extraordinary commitment by Government in that it has made specific estimates of the financial implications of addressing some of these anomalies highlighted above, including the remuneration and benefits of traditional leaders. A further commitment is that there will be a relook at the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act of 1998 in order to accommodate traditional leaders.

The passing of this Bill does not in any way imply completion of our work on it, but rather signals the start of more serious work in the provinces. We are facing reasonably tight schedules in this regard. We are confident, though, that by February 2004 this task team will be able to report some progress in this regard.

The absence of amendments from this Bill does not in any way imply that it is perfect, but only signals that it is a framework that will be worked upon by the provinces. We commend the Bill for your approval, hon members.

Before I resume my seat, may I also thank the department, including the Minister, for the extraordinary hours they have worked in dealing with this Bill. Mr Sam Titus, Mr Kasawe, Adv Motai, Dr Bouwer and others were very splendid in dealing with this Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr J J DOWRY (Western Cape): Madam Chairperson, Minister Mufamadi and hon members, may I congratulate the hon the Minister on the Bill before the House today. Not only does this Bill recognise the institution, status and role of traditional leaders, but it also gives effect to the constitutional requirement to provide a leadership role for traditional leaders. In the past these leaders have played a crucial role in defining our history and they remain a vital element of leadership among a vast component of people in South Africa. The Bill is not unduly prescriptive. It rather seeks to provide the national framework, norms and standards in terms of which provincial legislation will be enacted that will take into account provincial specifics.

Let me start by commenting on some of the technical issues dealt with by this Bill. The Premier of the Western Cape submitted comments and recommendations regarding the draft Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill during July this year. I am pleased to note that at least some of the recommendations have been accommodated in the final Bill before the Council. The draft Bill referred to both indigenous law and customary law. Differences in indigenous law and customary law create an impression that these terms have different meanings. Also, in the South African jurisprudence indigenous law and customary law have always been used synonymously. The recommendation that the term indigenous law'' be deleted from the Bill has been accommodated and the term customary law’’ is now used consistently.

The draft Bill required that at least a third of the members of a traditional council must be women. With due regard to Chapter 9 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality between men and women, the Western Cape suggested that it is unlikely that such a phrase will pass the constitutional test. It has been noted that the final Bill addresses this issue by the insertion of clause 3(2)(d), which reads as follows:

Where it has been proved that an insufficient number of women are available to participate in a traditional council, the premier concerned may, in accordance with a procedure provided for in provincial legislation, determine a lower threshold for the particular traditional council than that required by paragraph (b) …

… that a third must be women.

However, I remain of the view that there should be equality between men and women and that a threshold of 50/50 be set subject to the premier determining a lower threshold. I have noted that the suggestion by the Western Cape that the death of a member of the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims, be included under the heading Vacancies in clause 24 of the final Bill, has unfortunately not been accommodated. It is general practice for such a provision to be included.

As the Bill is a further step in defining the role of traditional leaders, I am of the opinion that traditional leaders can and must play a role in addressing the real needs of their people. Former President Nelson Mandela, during the inauguration of a traditional leader in Venda on 28 November 1998, said:

Traditional leaders now occupy a critical place in the great partnership of all social sectors whose joint effort will make our country just and prosperous. Government alone cannot transform this country, but as a united nation we will succeed.

With reference to the creation of opportunities for women, encouraging participation of communities in their own upliftment and building capacity for our local authorities to work with national and provincial government to meet the needs of communities, Mr Mandela said:

Traditional leaders are well placed to help us achieve these goals, and we count on your support. Indeed, in all the major challenges facing our country we know that you will help our nation to meet its goals.

I have expressed myself consistently on the important role of local government in the alleviation of poverty and I am pleased that the framework Bill specifically deals with partnerships between municipalities and traditional councils. Of exceptional importance is that the traditional council may enter into a service-delivery agreement with a municipality in accordance with the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act. This partnership will undoubtedly assist our rural communities in South Africa, where traditional leadership is present, and will ensure that they receive the necessary services which will remove the obstacles on the way to development and prosperity.

The framework Bill further highlights the important role of ward committees, which we are currently implementing in the Western Cape. This Bill prescribes to traditional councils that they must co-operate with any relevant ward committee, as these ward committees must take into account the diversity of interests in the ward to be represented. It follows logically that due recognition is given to traditional leaders in the composition of these ward committees where it is applicable.

Lastly, once again in the words of the former President, I appeal to our traditional leaders to ensure that the registration of voters for the forthcoming election is a success. Participation is the lifeblood of democracy and it is democracy that is bringing peace and prosperity back to South Africa.

In the Western Cape we have the Khoisan communities, such as the Griquas, which up to now have not received the necessary recognition. Today we are debating a Bill which in essence deals with the framework for traditional leadership, and still the issue of traditional leadership and governance of the Khoisan communities must be considered. The Khoisan communities claim recognition in terms of customs and tradition.

Die Khoisan het ‘n leefwyse van menslikheid, sorgsaamheid, gasvryheid, eerlikheid en nederigheid wat oor millennia strek. Wedersydse erkenning en gelykheid vir almal, veral tussen mans en vrouens, is die fondament van die Khoisan. Die Khoisan respekteer die wysheid van oues en het waardering vir hul ervaring om probleme te hanteer. Met die 10 jaar van demokrasie wat ons volgende jaar vier, kan ons almal by die Khoisan leer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[The Khoisan follow a lifestyle of humaneness, caring, hospitality, honesty and humility stretching over millennia. Mutual recognition and equality for all, in particular between men and women, is the foundation of the Khoisan. The Khoisan respect the wisdom of the elders and can appreciate their experience in dealing with problems. With the 10 years of democracy that we will be celebrating next year we can all learn from the Khoisan.]

The Constitution provides for the establishment of national and provincial houses of traditional leaders. Such houses were established in the provinces of North West, Limpopo, the Free State, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. This must be commended. In a nation of 44 million people of diverse backgrounds, origins, cultures, languages and beliefs it is important to ensure that traditional leaders receive their due recognition. This is also in line with the vision of the Western Cape of IKapa Elihlumayo - hope, delivery and dignity for the next decade. I thank you. [Applause.] Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, well done'' is better thanwell said’’. So, let’s do it because we can. If there is anyone who deserves these accolades, it’s the hon Minister for Provincial and Local Government, together with all those who contributed to drafting the White Paper on Traditional Leadership to the point where it is now where we have this Bill before us.

It was not easy. This is really a job well done. It is true that when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

This institution has got a long history. This institution and its traditional leadership attracted many comments from various quarters during public hearings by the portfolio committee. Some were not just comments but, somehow, attacks on the institution and its traditional leaders.

Surprisingly, many of the attacks came from self-proclaimed experts on traditional leadership. The attacks came from people who knew very little about this institution. Some would go to the extent of ridiculing this institution, thinking that by so doing, they would be seen to be progressive.

I do not think that we have to worry about those few individuals. Let us allow them to freely express their opinions. Other than that, we can only pray for them and ask the Almighty God to forgive them.

We belong to an organisation that has always been considerate and consistent, the ANC. Just look at all those documents that relate to this institution that date back from 1912, when the ANC was formed. On behalf of all the progressive traditional leaders and their communities, I want to convey our sincere thanks to the ANC leadership for showing respect and a keen interest in this institution.

The committee was informed that there are some areas where women are not allowed to participate in traditional courts. We learnt, again, that in some areas women are not even allowed to own land or residential sites. This kind of practice will never enjoy our support. I want to call upon all those traditional leaders who are still married to that barbaric action or old practice to change before they are overtaken by events.

Fortunately, some of these things are news to some of us. That is the reason why, at times, one becomes easily irritated when general statements are made or when we are put in the same category.

The establishment of a traditional council will go a long way in addressing some of these anomalies. This is the structure that will enable men and women to work together as equals. I just hope provinces and municipalities will empower this structure by devolving some functions to it. If that is not done, this structure will serve no purpose. The traditional council can only deliver if it is supported, financially, by the national or provincial governments or even municipalities.

We had a lengthy debate on what would cause a traditional leader, a king, queen, headman or headwoman, to be removed from their throne. In particular, one of the reasons that would cause them to be removed or dethroned is found in clause 10(1)(b) and 12(1)(b), that is, on the grounds of physical incapacity or mental infirmity, and so on.

In our culture, those grounds cannot be used to remove a kgoshi [chief] from his or her position. The only comfort is that the royal family would have to pronounce itself on the matter before any action could be taken. Let’s hope these clauses will not be exploited by those who are overambitious and will do anything to see themselves in those positions.

Kings, queens or senior traditional leaders will be recognised. There was a time in this country when the wrong people were appointed to positions of traditional leadership. I know of many traditional leaders who were removed from their positions by the then chief ministers because they refused to join those chief ministers’ Mickey Mouse political parties.

Some were deposed and their brothers put in place because they associated themselves with those stooges. Some were either detained or deported to areas they did not know. Unfortunately, my father went through the same ordeal. It was argued that they were not respecting the laws of the country.

This brings me to the work of the commission. This commission will have to show no mercy to those who agreed to be used, knowing very well that they do not qualify to be makgosis, amakhosi, dikgosi or traditional leaders. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr A T MANYOSI (Eastern Cape): Madam Chairperson, hon Minister for Provincial and Local Government, hon permanent and special delegates, on behalf of the Eastern Cape province, I rise to support the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill, as amended.

Our Government has consistently assured traditional leaders that it recognises the relevance of the institution of traditional leadership and affirms the role of traditional leaders in line with co-operative governance, and that their role in maintaining the unity of traditional communities and promoting development within those communities is beyond question.

I have no doubt in my mind that it has dawned upon all of us, judging from the strenuous practical exercise which the Department of Provincial and Local Government and all other role-players have engaged in over the past five to six years, that the process of generating a legislative framework for the recognition, placement and defining of the roles and functions of traditional leaders, both at national and provincial levels, could not have been justly and adequately accomplished and, therefore, detailed in the Constitution at the level of the Constitutional Assembly as the demand had always been made for this important matter to be addressed expeditiously.

Traditional leadership and the institution of traditional leadership is in no way homogenous in our country. Therefore, it becomes necessary for the minute details of how the institution works to be left to the provinces to legislate; however, within the national framework as proposed by the Bill. Hence the need for the provincial version of the draft law now being considered.

What is referred to as amakhosi elsewhere means chiefs or traditional leaders, but in other provinces, it means some spirits. Be that as it may, the bones of Sekhukhune, Shaka, Dingane, Bhambatha, Hintsa and many other historical traditional governors of this land should be turning in their graves in appreciation of the giant strides taken by Government to restore the status, dignity and role of the traditional leadership institutions in line with the democratic Constitution of our rainbow nation so as to achieve uniformity in material respects.

There is a mistaken notion or belief that, from time immemorial, traditional leaders and their institutions had always been undemocratic, but this is far-fetched and far from the truth. Traditional leaders have always worked and taken decisions in councils. Hence the old adage that a chief is a chief because of his people or his respect for the word of his people.

Therefore, it is fitting that this Bill envisages the establishment of traditional councils and their functions, thus restoring the status quo, which should work in support of and in partnership with the municipalities in the promotion of development within their respective traditional communities.

For the first time in the history of traditional leadership, the Bill addresses the daunting question of the exclusion of women from the corridors of traditional governance. We stand for the sensible acknowledgement, accommodation and promotion of a diversity of cultures and traditions on the one hand, and democratically elected institutions; none, however, at the expense of the other.

The support given to traditional leaders by Government in the various provinces already points to the fact that Government is serious about restoring the dignity of traditional leaders, greatly eroded by previous apartheid governments that turned traditional leaders into civil servants and messengers of government in the true sense of the word ``messengers’’.

The concerns that were expressed by the prophets of doom that Government was not serious about defining the role for traditional leaders should now be withdrawn as the Bill evidently enhances rather than reduces the status and role of traditional leaders.

Whilst the previous apartheid rulers could appoint and term their loyalist traditional leaders or headman as they wished, thus bringing about resentment and dissatisfaction within traditional communities, the Bill clearly defines the position of traditional leadership, thereby eliminating confusion over who should and who should not be a traditional leader, for it is inherent in the system of traditional leadership that there will be, from time to time, disputes over who is a rightful heir or a successor to the position of traditional leadership.

The Bill establishes a Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims which will, unlike the ad hoc mechanisms being employed currently, objectively rather than subjectively look at each case of dispute or claim of traditional leadership.

The time is now over when the powers that be would depose traditional leaders and appoint whoever demonstrated loyalty to them, irrespective of what tradition and custom dictated.

The Bill also provides for a code of conduct for traditional leaders so that they may always be wary of what is expected of them. We are convinced and confident that there is room for the institution of traditional leaders to be reconciled with the democratically elected structures of governance and, in the spirit of co-operative governance, promote development within traditional communities.

Without going deeply into the provisions of the Bill, the Eastern Cape supports the Bill, as indicated earlier. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr D AFRICA (North West): Madam Chairperson, hon Minister, members of the NCOP, allow me to express the appreciation of the North West for the progressive manner in which the Minister and the department have gone about to finalise the protracted discussion concerning the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill.

We in the North West are satisfied that the Bill will assist us to entrench some of the practices and interactions that we have embraced in working with the institution of traditional leadership in the province, through our province-specific legislation. Once and for all, this Bill has succeeded to dispel the myth and falsehood of those who advertised the view that the ruling party is bent on marginalising traditional leaders and their institutions from the mainstream of governance and development.

In this Bill we see a progressive move to define the space and parameters within which the institution will exercise its leadership and contribute to governance and development in the political and economic landscape, especially in rural areas.

Undeniably, the coalescence and co-existence of the practice of traditional governance with the democratic structures of government at the local level will need to be monitored and supported on a continuous basis. This notwithstanding, since all of us understand that it is a fundamental human right to have a decent life, and access to health, education, freedom and security, we also understand that neither form of government is organically antithetical to the other.

From the North West, we also recognise that in embracing these freedoms, in accordance with our Bill of Rights, this Bill stands in direct contradistinction to the orgy of political tyranny and dictatorship that has had negative and suffocating effects on many of the South African rural populace.

We are proud to provide evidence, as a province, of a functional strategic partnership between democratic Government institutions and traditional leadership. Members of this House will recall that on the occasion of delivering the statement of the national executive committee of the ruling party in Rustenburg, President Mbeki alluded to the important agreement that was signed on the same day between the Bojanala Platinum District Municipality, the Rustenburg Local Municipality and the Royal Bafokeng Administration. In terms of this memorandum, all role-players committed themselves to exploring collaborative ways of freeing their communities from the miasma of underdevelopment. We can attest to the fact that this relationship has materially affected the lives of the people in this area in a positive way.

It is therefore not accidental that many other municipalities sought to emulate this example. At the recent provincial Vuna Award ceremony in the province, the Greater Taung Municipality received recognition for working in a harmonious way with traditional leaders. There is therefore proof that traditional leaders and institutions of Government can work together for the benefit of the communities. And, there is therefore no evidence to suggest that traditional leaders have no role to play in a modern system of government.

As we are concluding our work in finalising this Bill, our society is also engulfed by a new challenge that manifests itself in an unprecedented level of violence against the most marginalised - women. Minister, we should invite our traditional leaders and other development agents to join Government and multiply our collective efforts to galvanise our communities in order to defeat conditions that beget violence against women and children. We are of the view that our traditional leaders are essential components of the epicentre around which the moral social fabric of our rural communities revolves.

The fundamental tenets of our Constitution, in terms of the rights of women and children, should translate into meaningful benefits for all members of our society. We believe that traditional leaders can play a key role and the Bill provides an opportunity for them to entrench practices of democracy and, therefore, conditions of safety for women and children.

We in the North West have consistently refused to be persuaded by a misrepresentation of the institutions of traditional leadership as static organs that do not adapt to changing material conditions. Like developmental states, traditional leadership institutions are not static. We see the institution as an integral part of the plethora of human institutions whose functions and objects are located within the political, cultural, historical and economic reality in which the institutions are immersed.

All significant changes in the environment will induce important modifications to the institutions of traditional leadership models. Accordingly, traditional leaders and institutions could become pivotal organs that will assist communities in the task of codifying total realities into symbols that generate critical consciousness and empower them to alter their relations with nature and other economic forces.

As societies move from one epoch to another, they require the development of a flexible and critical outlook which leads to new ways of doing things. It is the objective reality that human institutions such as government, traditional institutions and churches will have to critically engage with. From the point of view of a developmental state, the only progressive approach to sustained development is through making people both the object and subject of their history and development. In this equation the developmental role of traditional leaders and institutions to engender within their respective communities a conscientious and sustainable use of nonrenewable resources such as water and energy would be critical.

Furthermore, it is important to us how traditional leaders and institutions interact with community development challenges in a manner that enriches their communities and in a way that will ensure that they play a critical role as motors or drivers of development and cultural emancipation.

As a developmental state, at local level we have clarity of mind that democracy is not a vaccination against poverty. It is for this reason that, as Government, we have sought to establish strategic partnerships for development that will assist in freeing our people from the chains of malnutrition and poverty.

As this relationship between the institution of traditional leadership and the democratic Government is cemented further, we need to take cognisance that the political economy of development, with which we seek to engage to better the lives of our people, is characterised by relations that take place at a global level. To engage with this complex and dynamic situation, it will be necessary for the institution to work closely with the democratically elected structures of Government and the private sector in forging strategic and innovative partnerships to explore the potential of the rural economies.

The involvement of our traditional leaders and institutions in engendering a sense of responsibility, and promoting human resource development and education within their communities, will contribute immensely to either the growth or decline of the economic potential of their localities. In this, we concur with Hamsik that, ``The quality of labour, knowledge and social institutions has become fundamental to explaining local economic development.’’ In this respect, we look forward to seeing traditional leaders working closely with municipalities in an effort to realise the human development strategies of their localities, as contained in the integrated development plans.

Minister, as Government advances in its consolidation of the developmental state, the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill bears testimony to Government laying bare its credentials in its long-standing resolve to find amicable and adroit resolutions to all challenges confronting our communities. In a succinct manner, we also think the Ministry and department have done well to finally debunk the perennial fulmination by some, hypnotised by their imaginary alternatives, who sought to trivialise the commitment by Government to finding amicable ways to resolve this matter.

In conclusion, we think that the creation of a stable platform from which traditional leaders will engage with Government provides the opportunity for the latter to focus their attention on the mandate imposed by hereditary aspects and removes the need for them to play dual roles as both politicians and traditional leaders.

As the North West, we welcome the introduction of the Bill to our system of government as an essential element in the consolidation of our democracy. With the finalisation of this Bill, we think that we will now roll up our sleeves and put our shoulders to the wheel to ensure that development and change take place in our localities. I wish to commend the department and officials for a splendid milestone in the history of our country. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Agb Voorsitter, ons het vandag te doen met ‘n raamwerk en nie ‘n wetsontwerp wat ‘n spesifieke inheemse gemeenskap probeer erken of wegwys nie.

Maar ek wil tog u aandag daarop vestig dat daar sekere tradisionele leiers bestaan wat ‘n bekommernis het dat sekere inheemse gemeenskappe tog op die oomblik nie tot hulle reg sal kom deur hierdie wetsontwerp nie. Ek wil maan dat die saak met erns bejeën moet word. Dit mag nie gebeur dat ‘n tradisionele gemeenskap geïgnoreer word nie.

Soos die agb voorsitter Mkhaliphi gesê het, moet die raamwerk verder ontwikkel word. Maar, Voorsitter, as ‘n ere-stamhoof van die Khoisan, sluit ek graag aan by die agb Dowry, LUR van die Weskaap, dat dit belangrik is dat die saak van hierdie unieke inheemse gemeenskap duidelik gehoor en verstaan moet word.

In hierdie wetsontwerp is daar twee gedagterigtings oor die Khoisan, naamlik dat wetgewing wel vir hulle voorsiening maak, maar dan ook dat hulle omstandighede só uniek is dat hulle anders hanteer moet word, en dat hierdie wetsontwerp op die oomblik nie vir hulle voorsiening maak nie.

Daar was reeds twee vergaderings tussen die departement en die leierskap van die Khoisan-mense, en daar gaan weer ‘n werkswinkel in Desember plaasvind. Die uitkoms van dié vergaderings moet gebruik word om hierdie wetsontwerp voor ons te wysig, indien dit nodig is, sodat die Khoisan- gemeenskap ten volle geakkommodeer word. Op hierdie voorwaarde steun die Nuwe NP dan hierdie wetsontwerp.

Maar, Voorsitter, die Khoisan-gemeenskap het wesenlike aansprake op regte ten opsigte van gewoontes en tradisies. Dit is tog die oergemeenskap van Suid-Afrika. Hulle het egter spesifieke behoeftes en belangstellings wat nog nie deur die wetsontwerp gedek word nie.

Die Nuwe NP het in die verlede en sal voortgaan om ook die besorgdhede van die Khoisan onder die aandag van die relevante instansies te bring en ook om dit te bevorder. Die proses om die Khoisan-gemeenskap in ‘n nasionale struktuur te akkomodeer, is besig om te ontplooi, maar dit gebeur te stadig. Die gesprek met die departement, gedurende Desember, is baie belangrik, maar ‘n ernstige gesprek tussen die nasionale Raad van Tradisionele Leiers en die Khoisan-raad moet ook op ‘n gereelde grondslag begin plaasvind.

Hierdie tradisionele gemeenskap, die Khoisan, is nie net goed genoeg dat hulle in ons landswapen gereflekteer word nie, of dat hul kuns en vaardighede as toeriste-aantreklikhede uitgestal moet word nie. Hul tradisionaliteit moet ten volle erken word.

Die Nuwe NP huldig verder ook die standpunt dat tradisionele leiers verkieslik nie aktiewe partypolitieke leierskapposisies behoort te beklee nie. Dit gebeur te maklik dat die belangrike rol wat hulle speel in die skep van eenheid, vrede en harmonie, in en tussen gemeenskappe, deur aktiewe partypolitieke bedrywighede ondermyn word.

Ons is egter deeglik bewus van die geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika en weet dat tradisionele leiers nog lank aktief in die party-politiek sal wees. Die ideaal behoort egter nagestreef te word, want die gemeenskappe loop die gevaar dat hulle deur hul leiers in onheilige partypolitieke alliansies ingedwing of ingeboender word, sonder dat die tradisionele gemeenskap noodwendig enige voordeel daaruit trek, en dít net tot die voordeel van ‘n enkele politieke leier met kwynende ondersteuning.

Die DA-IVP-alliansie is ‘n voorbeeld hiervan. Dit is ook interessant om daarop te let dat die DA en die IVP, wat beide hierdie wetsontwerp in die Nasionale Vergadering teengestaan het, nie eers vandag aan hierdie debat deelneem nie. Dan wonder ‘n mens net wat is die rede vir hul teenkanting teen die wetsontwerp. Voorsitter, die Nuwe NP sal ook met afwagting kyk hoe die artikel 185- kommissie die kultuur-, godsdiens- en taalaangeleenthede van die gemeenskappe hanteer. Die Nuwe NP steun hierdie wetsontwerp en ons sê: “Ke rona” [“We support”]. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Hon Chairperson, today we are dealing with a framework and not a Bill that is trying to acknowledge or turn away a specific indigenous community.

I do, however, want to draw your attention to the fact that there are certain traditional leaders who are concerned that at present, through this Bill, justice will not be done to certain indigenous communities. I wish to caution that this matter be treated in earnest. It must not happen that a traditional community is ignored.

As the chairperson, the hon Mkhaliphi, has said, the framework must be developed further. But, Chairperson, as an honorary chief of the Khoisan, I would like to echo the hon Dowry, MEC for the Western Cape, that it is important for the case of this unique indigenous community to be heard and understood clearly.

In this Bill there are two schools of thought regarding the Khoisan, namely that legislation does provide for them, but also that their circumstances are so unique that they have to be dealt with differently, and that this Bill currently does not provide for them.

Two meetings have already taken place between the department and the leadership of the Khoisan people, and another workshop will be taking place in December. The results of these meetings should be used to amend the Bill before us, if necessary, so that the Khoisan community can be fully accommodated. On these conditions the New NP therefore supports the Bill.

But, Chairperson, the Khoisan community has fundamental claims to rights in respect of customs and traditions. They are, after all, the original community of South Africa. However, they have specific needs and interests which are not yet covered by the Bill.

As in the past, the New NP will continue to bring the concerns of the Khoisan to the attention of the relevant authorities and also continue to promote them. The process whereby the Khoisan community can be accommodated in a national structure is unfolding, but it is happening too slowly. The dialogue with the department in December is very important, but serious dialogue between the national Council of Traditional Leaders and the Khoisan council should also start taking place on a regular basis.

This traditional community, the Khoisan, is not just good enough to feature on our coat of arms, or to display their arts and crafts as tourist attractions. Their traditionality must be fully acknowledged.

The New NP is furthermore also of the opinion that traditional leaders should rather not fill positions of active party-political leadership. It can happen all too easily that their important role in creating unity, peace and harmony in and between communities becomes undermined by vigorous party-political activities.

We are, however, thoroughly aware of South Africa’s history and know that traditional leaders will still be active in party politics for a long time to come. The ideal ought to be pursued, however, because the communities are at risk of being forced or bundled into unholy party-political alliances by their leaders, without the traditional community necessarily profiting from it, and this only to the advantage of a single political leader with declining support.

The DA-IFP alliance is an example of this. It is also interesting to note that the DA and the IFP, who both opposed this Bill in the National Assembly, are not even participating in this debate today. One just wonders, then, about the reason for their opposition to this Bill.

Chairperson, the New NP will watch in anticipation how the section 185 commission is going to handle the cultural, religious and linguistic affairs of the communities. The New NP supports this Bill and we say: “Ke rona” [“We support”]. [Applause.]]

Cllr S W MXOLOSE (Salga): Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members and special delegates, the SA Local Government Association is in full support of the spirit of the proposed legislation as it provides for the transformation of the institution of traditional leadership so that it is consistent with the needs of our new system of democratic governance.

During the public hearings of the Portfolio Committee on Local Government, Salga made the following recommendations in respect of the Bill.

It recommended, firstly, that the entry into service delivery partnerships between municipalities and traditional councils expressly be made subject to the provisions of the Municipal Systems Act; secondly, that the Bill makes provision for national and provincial funding for local houses of traditional leaders; thirdly, that there must be compulsory consultation with organised local government nationally, and within the province, when roles are allocated to the traditional leaders; and fourthly, we recommend that paragraph 5(2)(b) be deleted in its entirety so that the envisaged partnership between municipalities and traditional councils must be based on the principle of mutual respect and recognition of the status and roles of the respective parties.

We at Salga therefore take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the select committee and the National Council of Provinces for giving us the opportunity to participate in the deliberations on this important piece of legislation in which almost all of our concerns and recommendations have been addressed, with the exception of the one that I have alluded to above.

I want to conclude by saying that traditional leadership has a vital role to play in the extension of democracy and accountability to our traditional communities. This Bill clearly articulates the role of the traditional leadership in governance and related municipal matters which will serve to bring democracy and accountability even closer to the different portions of our population. It is for these reasons that Salga supports the principle and material substance of the Bill. I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Nksz N C KONDLO: Sekela-Sihlalo, Mphathiswa, ndawonye nalo ungenayo, malungu ale Ndlu, mandithabathe eli thuba nam ndiphefumle kulo Mthetho oYilwayo ozinjongo zikukuqinisa ubukhosi nendima yabo kumasiko nezithethe, nophuhliso loluntu jikelele.

Eneneni, ubukhosi kudala bukho, buyinxalenye yabantu abamnyama. Kwaye bebufudula buyindlela yokuphila kwethu imihla ngemihla, njengoko kusenjalo nangoku. Njengayo nayiphina into, ubukhosi, ngokuhamba kweminyaka nangokuqhubela phambili koluntu, abumanga ndawonye. Kwaye bungavalelekanga ekoneni bodwa, koko buchatshazelwa ziinguqu eluntwini. Yiyo loo nto ke bungenakufana nayizolo.

Sihlalo, ndifuna ukubethelela umbandela wokuba ingamampunge into yokusoloko, xa kuthethwa ngolawulo lobukhosi, kube ngathi bebungena ntatho- nxaxheba yoluntu ndaweni nye negalelo labantu kwizinto ebezithi zixoxwe, kuthatyathwe izigqibo kuzo, kuba eneneni izimvo zabantu ngemicimbi yakomkhulu bezithatyathelwa izigqibo ngabantu, kwakuba kuxoxiwe komkhulu. Amaxesha amaninzi inkosi leyo ibiza kuwuzisa umcimbi embizweni, uluntu luphefumle, ze sithatyathwe isigqibo.

Inye nje kuphela sihlalo apho inkqubo yobukhosi ibirhuqisa umraji khona, kwaye ekusenjalo kwezinye iindawo, kukunganiki oomama okanye abantu basetyhini ilungelo lokuba yinxalenye yokuthabatha izigqibo. [Uwelewele.] Kwaye awusokuze ufane ubone ingabo oomama abathabatha banikwe ubukhosi.

Eyona nto, Sekela-Sihlalo, eyimbambano ebonakalayo, njengomntu obe eyilandela inkqubo yengxoxo ngalo Mthetho oYilwayo, yeyokuba amandla okulawula abe kubani na? Kwisigaba sorhulumente wasemakhaya, ezinkosini okanye kubameli babantu abanyulwe ngabantu? Mhlawumbi nalo mbuzo ngesingawubuzi ukuba ngaba iinkosi, bekusithi apha ekuqhutyweni kwezinto, zijonge into yokuba ingaba kulungile kusini na ukuba zithabathe inxaxheba kwezo politiko ngokuthi zibe ngamalungu emibutho ngokuphandle xa zisezihlalweni zobukhosi?

Nditsho kuba, ngokwemveli, iinkosi ngabantu abamele ukuqinisekisa inkqubela- phambili ngokwamasiko nezithethe, ukuqinisekisa umanyano kubantu bayo, ukunceda iimpula zika lujaca, ikhaya lakomkhulu ebe lisoloko lishushu, apho kwamkelwa khona abantu. Kwaye le ndima iinkosi kufanele ziyidlale. Umbuzo ke, Sihlalo, ngowokuba: xa inkosi izibandakanya nombutho wezopolitiko ngokuphandle,inganakho na ukumanya abantu bayo abasenokuba kwimibutho yezopolitiko eyahlukileyo kulowo wayo? Lo ngumba ke isebe noluntu jikelele ekufanele liwujonge njengokuba kuqhutyelwa phambili nje.

Yiyo loo nto ke ufumanisa into yokuba ezinye iinkokeli zizisebenzisile iinkosi khon’ ukuze zifumane iinxaso. Uve ke inkosi isithi: ``Abantu bam kule ndawo baza kuvotela la mbutho uthile.’’ Masithembe ke, Mphathiswa, okokuba la mhlathi we12 uza kuhlangabezana nawo lo mba kuba lo gama inkosi iziveze phandle ukuba imi phi kwezo politiko, ngokuthi ibe ngummeli wabantu, kukhona indlela eza kusetyenziswa yokuhlangabezana naloo nto.

Okunye, Sihlalo, lo Mthetho oYilwayo ubandakanya izibonda. Njengomntu ovela eMpuma Koloni, lo mba wezibonda ke uthande ukuba yitolofiya kuba thina ephondweni sibe neendidi ezimbini zezibonda. Ezo, eneneni, zingabantwana begazi nezo zazihlohlwe ngenkani ngoorhulumente boonomgogwana phezu kweentloko zabantu. Ibinga ke lo Mthetho oYilwayo, Sihlalo, awusivuseli ezo izibonda.

Ndiyathemba okokuba la ngcaciso yamagama ephaya kwesiya sihloko sokuqala ithetha ngeziya zegazi. Kwaye inga nephondo, xa lisenza umthetho walo, liqinisekise ngalo mba kuba ingavusa amanxeba xa zinokubuya eziya zakhululwayo zagoduka, kungenjalo, ezaphela nokuphela koonomgogwana.

Ukuba ndiva kakuhle, Sihlalo, lo Mthetho oYilwayo ungeenjongo zokuqinisekisa ukuba ubukhosi obu bubetha ngesingqi esinye nolawulo lwabantu ngabantu, kananjalo ungeenjongo zokubuyisa isidima seenkosi. Sokhumbula kaloku okokuba inkosi iyazalwa. Mandehle ngelithi ke, Sihlalo, lo Mthetho oYilwayo ubuyisa izithethe namasiko. Sohlala siwakhumbula amaqhawe eenkosi zezwe lethu, ooMaqoma, ooSikhukuni, ooBambatha nooLangalibalele.

Ndikhe ndazama ke, Sihlalo, ukukhangela iinkosi ezazingoomama. Hayi, zandinqabela. Ngethemba ke lokuba lo Mthetho oYilwayo uza kwenza sibone iinkosi ezingoomama zithabatha ubukhosi, kwaye zisanda, hayi kuba zibambele oonyana okanye abazukulwana, koko zibe ziinkosi kuba ziselungelweni.

Lixesha elimnandi ke eli, Sekela-Sihlalo, lokuba siwupasise lo Mthetho oYilwayo kuba kaloku le ngxoxo yenziwa ngethuba leentsuku zomgushuzo ochasene nokuxhatshazwa kwamalungelo oomama nabantwana. Lo Mthetho oYilwayo ke, kuba eneneni uqinisekisa indima yoomama, belingekho elinye ixesha ebe liphucukile lokuba siwupasise ngalo kule Ndlu. Ngalo mazwi ke Sihlalo, siyawuxhasa lo Mthetho oYilwayo singu-ANC. [Kwaqhwatywa] (Translation of isiXhosa speech follows).

[Ms N C KONDLO: Deputy Chairperson, hon Minister, including the one who has just entered, hon members of this House, let me also take this opportunity to comment on this Bill, whose objective is to enhance traditional leadership and its role with regard to culture and tradition, and human development in general.

Traditional leadership has in fact been in existence for a long time, and has always been part of black people’s lives. It has always been part of our daily life, and still is. Like everything else, traditional leadership has changed with time and as man developed. Because it does not exist in a little corner over there, it is affected by changes to humanity. That is why it cannot be the same as it was yesterday.

Chairperson, I want to emphasise the fact that it is wrong for people to talk of traditional leadership as if it did not accommodate community participation, because, really, decisions on matters affecting the royal family were taken by the people, after discussion. In most cases the chief concerned would bring a matter before an imbizo, for the community to comment and take a decision on.

There is one thing that was unacceptable about traditional leadership, a situation which still prevails in certain areas, and that is the fact that women or females were not included in the decision-making processes. [Interjections.] And you seldom find women who are traditional leaders.

The controversy around this Bill, Deputy Chairperson, as somebody who has been following discussions around it, concerns the question of where power should reside. Should it reside with local government, with traditional leaders or with the elected representatives of the people? Perhaps we wouldn’t be asking this question if traditional leaders were to consider the wisdom of their taking part openly in politics, by becoming members of political organisations.

I am saying this because traditionally chiefs are the ones who have to ensure cultural progress and unity among the people, help the poorest of the poor and make everyone feel welcome in the royal house. They have to play this role. The question, therefore, is: If a traditional leader sides openly with a particular political organisation, would he or she be able to unite his subjects, some of whom would be members of opposing political parties? This is an issue which the department and the community at large should consider as we go along.

That is why you find that certain leaders use traditional leaders for political gain. You will find a traditional leader saying: “My people here are going to vote for that particular political party.” Let us hope, therefore, hon Minister, that clause 12 will address the issue of traditional leaders openly taking political sides by becoming political representatives. Furthermore, this Bill touches on the question of councillors. To me, as a person from the Eastern Cape, the question of councillors is a controversial one because in the province we had two kinds of councillors. We had the traditional ones and those that were imposed on the people. I hope that this Bill does not revive the latter.

I hope that the explanation in the definitions and interpretation refers to the traditional ones. I also hope that the province, when making its own law regarding councillors, will do the right thing because this issue could open up old wounds if the ones who were imposed on the people are brought back.

If I heard correctly, this Bill aims to ensure that traditional leadership and democracry operate in tandem with one another, as well as to restore the dignity of traditional leadership. We will remember that a traditional leader is a traditional leader by virtue of birth. Let me conclude by saying that this Bill is reviving our norms and traditions. We will always remember the chiefs who were the heroes of our country, such as Maqoma, Sekhukhune, Bambatha and Langalibalele.

I tried to trace female chiefs, but to no avail. I hope that this Bill will lead to women taking chieftaincy, and a sizeable number of them, not as regents, but as fully fledged chiefs.

This is the appropriate time, Chairperson, to pass this Bill because this debate takes place against the backdrop of efforts to stop the abuse of the rights of women and children. Because this Bill guarantees the role of women, there could not have been a better time to pass it. With those words, Chairperson, we as the ANC support this Bill. [Applause.]]

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Deputy Chairperson, allow me to thank all the hon members, including special delegates, who participated in this discussion and, once more, to say a word of thanks to the hon Mr Mkhaliphi and other members of the select committee for having brought us to this point. Allow me also to thank and welcome the hon Minister Valli Moosa who joined us to see the final stage of a process which he in fact started.

Chairperson, given the time constraints, I won’t really comment on everything that was said by hon members. I think these are matters that we will continue to discuss in future. Perhaps I just need to point out, in view of the remarks that were made by the hon MEC Mr Dowry and which were repeated by the hon Mr Van Niekerk regarding the the concerns of the Khoisan community, that at least four submissions were received from Khoisan stakeholders during the National Assembly consultation process. They indicated, as they were making those submissions, that they supported the Bill; however, they did make some proposals relating to amendments which they thought would then accommodate their unique circumstances.

The portfolio committee in the National Assembly was of the unanimous view that the process of consultation with the Khoisan stakeholders, which was started by the department and Ministry for Provincial and Local Government, must be proceeded with. We must not anticipate the outcome of that process. Let’s see what that process yields and then obviously we’ll be able to contemplate the next step. However, I do take note of the remarks that were made by the two hon members today.

Mr Dowry also makes a proposal. In fact, he does note that many of the proposals that were made by his premier were taken into account. I must say that not a single organisation’s or individual’s recommendations were not taken into account. We approached all the recommendations that were made in the spirit in which they were made and we took them on board as we sought to enrich the Bill before it came to Parliament. We did take note of the proposal, for instance, that we needed to say that ``in the event of a member of the commission dying, there shall be a vacancy’’. We didn’t state that in the Bill because we thought it would be self-evident that when a member dies a vacancy arises.

Mr Dowry quoted the former President, Mr Mandela, but as he proceeded with the speech, he forgot to close the quotation. I don’t know what implications that has for the Hansard. Let me leave that to those who look after our records. But once more, thank you very much for your participation. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill and the report of the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provincial votes. Are all the heads present? Yes.

In accordance with rule 71, I shall allow provinces the opportunity to make their declaration of votes if they so wish. Is there any? There is none. We shall proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetic order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or they abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Mr A T MANYOSI: In support.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Eastern Cape in support. Free State?

Ms N P KHUNOU: Re a dumela. [We agree.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Gauteng?

Mr D M RAMODIBE: Gauteng supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Abstain. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Limpopo? Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a o thekga. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Mpumalanga?

Mr V V Z WINDVOЁL: Mpumalanga ke ya rona. [Mpumalanga supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Re o ema nokeng. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Western Cape?

Mr K D S DURR: The Western Cape supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! I have eight provinces which voted in favour. [Interjections.] I therefore declare the Bill adopted in terms of Section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! Hon members, I am informed that there will be one debate in respect of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth Orders of the Day.

       NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: PROTECTED AREAS BILL
               ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL
       NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECOND AMENDMENT BILL
         NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: AIR QUALITY BILL

(Consideration of Bills and of Reports of Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs thereon) The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Chairperson, when 16- year-old Boitumelo Rampeng from Gauteng’s township of Ga-Rankuwa stood before a crowd of thousands of delegates attending the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban recently, she had an important message for the world. She pleaded for all of us to work tirelessly at preserving the beauty of mother nature in order for future generations to reap the same benefits from the earth that we have today.

It is with a great sense of pride that I inform this House that the ANC Government has indeed, in the almost 10 years of our country’s democracy, worked tirelessly to ensure a better life for all our people through a sustained environment.

The Bills I submit before you today bear testimony to this. The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill, the Environment Conservation Amendment Bill, the National Environmental Management Second Amendment Bill and the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill are all part of the country’s law reform programme. They aim to usher in a paradigm shift in environmental protection and management, ensuring that our people’s rights to a clean and sustained environment, enshrined in the Constitution of our land, are respected and protected. The Bills will, once passed, make certain that Government is able to use tools that are necessary for environmental justice to prevail in instances in which people’s environmental rights are violated.

On the question of protecting people’s environmental rights, the protection of rights is the cornerstone of all four pieces of legislation. The air quality Bill will replace the outmoded 1965 Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act. Central to this Bill is the need to provide for ambient air quality which is satisfactory for the public health of all our people. More specifically, it provides for the control of pollution hot spots, such as the areas around Durban South in KwaZulu-Natal, Milnerton in the Western Cape and other areas where local communities have had to bear an unfair burden of air pollution from industrial oil-refining and other industrial processes. The Environment Conservation Amendment Bill corrects past injustices in which industries polluted without regard to our people’s right to live in a waste-free environment. The health risks associated with asbestos have been of concern to members of the portfolio and select committees in both Houses for that matter. These committees and members held public hearings earlier this year to discuss these concerns and propose a way forward.

It is my pleasure to announce to the National Council of Provinces and all of its hon members that your concerns and your work to address them have not been in vain. The Bill addresses this by giving Government powers to introduce regulations to control the use of products that are harmful to people’s health and the environment, such as asbestos, plastic bags, etc.

On the question of ensuring community participation, the National Environmental Management Second Amendment Bill provides a platform for interested and affected members of society to have a say in development processes so as to influence and shape the final decision on any particular development. This way the people’s interests are protected as they are allowed active participation in the decision-making process.

Communities which were previously stripped of their dignity by the apartheid regime through forced removals in order to make way for parks, have been empowered by our democratic system to reclaim the land. These communities have entrusted Government with the responsibility of managing the land on their behalf. The protected areas Bill, which we consider today, goes further by making them and other communities living along protected areas active partners in the declaration and management of protected areas. The air quality Bill also ensures that people are part of air quality management decisions that directly affect their lives.

On the question of job creation, I have received reports that a number of worthwhile developments are being bogged down by the EIA process which, in some instances, has been delayed by unnecessary bureaucratic processes in various spheres of government. This amendment to the National Environmental Management Act will allow for a more efficient EIA procedure as it streamlines the process, making it speedier and cost-effective, thus allowing environmentally desirable projects to go ahead and thereby providing jobs and growing the economy at the same time.

All too often I have also received reports that the EIA process is being used by some unscrupulous developers to whitewash certain developments which are, in fact, environmentally unsound. The amendment we consider today lays down a certification procedure to ensure that environmental assessment practitioners and consultants are properly certified and comply with certain standards comparable to best practice in the world.

The anticipated legislation also provides for a fee to be paid for the assessment procedure. This is miniscule in relation to the cost of a development project in general, and the fees generated thereby will be used to build capacity in Government to process EIA applications and thereby improve service delivery. This new streamlined system will also encourage, we believe, investment in the country.

The protected areas Bill also holds enormous benefits for our people as it opens up opportunities for jobs through ecotourism. We can already testify to the benefits of ecotourism across South Africa. Indeed, there are many success stories to tell which highlight the role of protected areas as a contributing mechanism to Government’s struggle to push back the frontiers of poverty.

Our protected areas are the crown jewels in the crown of the burgeoning international tourism traffic which we have seen to the country since the advent of democracy. Many of the tourists that come to this country are drawn by the international reputation of our magnificent protected areas. The resulting in spin-offs for job creation and the provision of services are all too obvious. Provisions in the Environment Conservation Amendment Bill will not only influence people’s behaviour towards the environment, but will also contribute to the greater job creation effort. The Environment Conservation Amendment Bill is, for the first time in South Africa’s history, placing a value on waste and providing an opportunity to use waste as an economic generator.

By way of illustration, in May this year regulations banning the use of thin plastic bags for thicker, more durable, reusable and recyclable plastic bags came into effect. This was the first time in South Africa’s history that a waste product has had an economic value.

This plastic bag initiative has not only resulted in a significant reduction in the level of pollution, but will now also result in job creation through the plastic bag recycling company which we are in the process of establishing in collaboration with organised business and organised labour.

In this light, the Environment Conservation Amendment Bill allows Government to impose compulsory charging deposit systems or related financial measures on various waste streams. The revenue generated by a deposit system, for example, will be used to pay collectors of waste products and recyclers and thus provide much-needed jobs, while at the same time cleaning up the environment.

I would like to recognise those in the private sector who continue to demonstrate their commitment to the environment. A good example is the Collect-A-Can initiative which started just over 10 years ago and with which I remain highly impressed. It is an illustration of how a waste stream can be converted from a municipal nightmare into a golden opportunity for our people to put food on their tables.

These Bills also promote co-operative governance. The three spheres of governance will now be properly aligned through the synchronisation of functions and responsibilities, such as the issuing of permits by national, provincial and local government.

In conclusion, the theme of the Fifth World Parks Congress was “Protected Areas - Benefits Beyond Boundaries”. As a country we have made great strides towards realising many benefits from our protected areas. The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill will contribute substantially towards ensuring that these benefits to our communities are included in our legislative system.

A year before hosting the World Parks Congress, this country successfully hosted the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development, which sought to ensure greater commitment to the sustainability of mother earth and the lives of her people. Once passed, all these Bills will turn that vision into action.

By passing these Bills, our pledge to the young Boitumelo is: “We have heard your plea, and, yes, it is our constitutional duty and your constitutional right that it be heeded. We are seeing to it that you breathe clean, healthy air, that your health is protected from harmful waste and that you and your fellow young South Africans are empowered through environmentally sound development and through the benefits derived from protected areas.”

I would like to extend my gratitude to members of the select committee who continued to demonstrate their unreserved commitment to promoting the cause of environmental justice in our country. Without the support of the provinces you represent, we would not have been able to make the remarkable strides that we as a country have made over the past nine years of democracy. I thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Thank you, hon Minister. I now call upon Rev P Moatshe, the chairperson of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs.

Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson, Minister, MECs, special delegates, permanent delegates present and the department, I am honoured to participate in this debate.

Voorsitter, ons het ‘n verlede wat ons nie kan vergeet nie, maar ook ‘n hede waarin ons almal ons hande saamgooi om ‘n beter toekoms daar te stel. Daar is sommige mense wat nog in die verlede wil bly, wat gekant is teen transformasie. Maar dit is danksy hierdie Regering dat ons tot hiertoe kon kom om hierdie verandering teweeg te bring en as gevolg daarvan is ons ook baie bly dat daar samewerking was tussen ons komitee en die Minister tesame met sy departement. Ons wil ons innige woord van dank en opregte waardering betuig aan hulle. Ons wil ook ‘n woord van dank uitspreek teenoor al die provinsies wat hulle samewerking gegee het sodat ons ‘n jaar van samewerking kon deurmaak. Ons dank dié God inniglik wat ons gespaar het tot hiertoe. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Chairperson, we have a past that we cannot forget, but also a present in which all of us must work together to create a better future. There are certain people who want to remain in the past, who are opposed to transformation. But it is thanks to this Government that we could get this far to bring about change and because of that we are also very glad that there was co-operation between our committee and the Minister, together with his department. We want to covey to them our sincere thanks and heartfelt appreciation. We also want to convey a word of thanks to all the provinces who co-operated so that we could have a year of co-operation. We give deep thanks to this God who spared us thus far.]

The stage has already been eloquently set by the Minister for the debate on these four pieces of legislation that are before you, namely the National Environmental Management Second Amendment Bill, the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill, the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill and the Environment Conservation Amendment Bill. We are bringing these four Bills before you at once because they mainly address the same subject, but each Bill has got its own emphasis to bring about change in what we are envisaging as a country, so that there is a better life for everyone in this part of the world.

Mr V V Z WINDVOЁl: Sorry, hon Chair. Is it in order for the hon member Krumbock to respond to a cell phone call in the House? Shouldn’t he apologise?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Hon members, I have noticed that people have left their cell phones on. Would you please shut off your cell phones? And Mr Krumbock, if you are responding to your cell phone in the House, it is out of order. Continue, hon member. [Interjections.] Continue, hon member!

Rev P MOATSHE: I will deal first with the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill, which in actual fact provides the framework for the required reform through the establishment of national norms and standards and a regulatory framework for an air quality management planning and reporting regime and numerous regulatory instruments for the control of air pollution and a comprehensive approach to compliance and enforcement. Cognisance should be taken of the fact that the current approach to air quality management in South Africa is informed and regulated by the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act of 1965. That is the APPA, which for quite some time has been regarded as outdated for a number of reasons, not least of these being that it cannot accommodate constitutional allocation of functions in respect of the role of provincial and local government. That is, it has inadequate compliance and enforcement mechanisms to implement the Act effectively, and a lack of transparency and decision- making.

A turning point was reached with the publication in May 2000 of the White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management for South Africa, which sidelined the APPA. Thus the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill reflects the new approach.

The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill forms part of a suite of legislation established to manage the environment. The framework is provided for in the National Environmental Management Act where environmental management principles are set out and sections common to the other legislation in this suite allocated. Included in the suite is the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill, which provides for the management and conservation of the biological diversity of South Africa, the sustainable use of our biological resources, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use and application of genetic resources and material.

This Bill provides also for the existence of the South African national parks, the declaration and management of protected areas in South Africa and co-operative governance in such declaration and management of protected areas.

I now come to the Environment Conservation Amendment Bill. According to the Bill of Rights, everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing, and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote conservation, and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

The National Environmental Management Second Amendment Bill provides for amendments required in order for the Act to ensure the provision of a legal framework for the new suite of legislation for the country to meet its environmental responsibilities and functions.

The amendment rationalises and streamlines administration and enforcement provisions in the Act and is also aimed at addressing the previous lack of effective enforcement and implementation of environmental laws. The primary advantage of this amendment is that provinces’ and local governments’ staff members who are responsible for biodiversity management may be designated as environmental management inspectors to enforce the provisions of national environmental management legislation. Any legislation is as good as nonexistent without enforcement mechanisms.

In conclusion, as we look back on 10 years of democracy in our land, and take stock of achievements and lessons we have learned, we would in the same breath want, in planning for the next 10 years, to mark the beginning of a new era in biodiversity management and co-ordinated environmental functions and principles by passing these four Bills. Therefore I appeal to this House that we unaminously, without any objection, support these four Bills. [Applause.]

Mrs A M VERSFELD: Chairperson, thank you very much. At the outset, I would like to state that the DA supports all four environmental Bills before the House today. However, there are concerns and I will deal with them in my speech. [Interjections.]

Die wetgewing op beskermde gebiede, oftewel “protected areas”, maak dit moontlik en bekostigbaar om die landsoppervlak wat deur bewaringsorganisasies bestuur gaan word in die volgende vyf jaar te verdubbel.

Dit is ook gepas dat ons hierdie wetsontwerp hanteer in die jaar waarin ons land as gasheer opgetree het vir die vierde IUCN Congress on Protected Areas. Die internasionale gemeenskap het tydens die IUCN-kongres onderneem om op groot skaal te belê in beskermde gebiede. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The legislation relating to protected areas makes it possible and affordable to double the surface of the land that is going to be managed by environment conservation organisations in the next five years.

It is also appropriate that we deal with this Bill in the year in which we acted as host to the fourth IUCN Congress on Protected Areas. During the IUCN congress the international community undertook to invest in protected areas on a large scale.] Therefore the creation of mechanisms through which protected areas can seek funding from other sources is urgently needed. What concerns me most is what a Bill does not say or what it opens itself up to, rather than what it does say. For example, in the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill, in clause 48, it says “no person may conduct commercial prospecting or mining activities”. That is good.

The Bill does not specify that hunting is permitted. The problem is it does not specify that hunting is not permitted in national parks and wilderness areas. When I asked about this in the committee, it was stated to me that the Minister is on record as being against hunting. To me, that is not good enough. I believe that protected areas should be places where wilderness areas are preserved from exploitation by forestry and mining industries, and where wildlife is kept safe from bullets, arrows, snares and traps.

The words “sustainable use” emerge in several key provisions. However, this Bill does not provide any definition for the term ``sustainable’’. Once again, the Bill does not say what sustainable means or what is understood by that.

The definition of sustainability in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill does not cover the definition of sustainability given in the convention on biological diversity which requires focusing on the decline of biodiversity instead of the mere maintenance of biological resources. Biological diversity is more than the sum of biological resources. Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied”.

On the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill, I would just like to mention the following. Too much is being expected of local authorities in terms of monitoring and controlling of air quality. Some local authorities can hardly manage their own affairs. How can they be expected to monitor complex procedures associated with air quality? Secondly, I think there should be more emphasis on monitoring of the pollution point - that is where it is all happening - rather than the ambient quality. Thirdly, I think the Minister is given too much discretion. He “may” do certain things, where we believe he “should” do it.

The Environment Conservation Amendment Act makes three discret amendments to the Environment Conservation Act. The most important is that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism is the proper authority to control all and any form of pollution, including and especially hazardous waste.

In the end, I would just like to say that environmental protection is only as good as the law on which it is based. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr J P GELDERBLOM (Western Cape): Thank you, Chairperson. Laat ek aan die begin sê [Let me say from the outset] “We support all four Acts.” There are certain problems we are experiencing, but we will sort them out.

In the first place, in terms of the protected areas Bill, only the national Minister may appoint a broad range of people as management authorities; the MEC is still only entitled to assign the management of a protected area to an organ of state. In our opinion, the provincial MEC will be closer to the conservation agencies and landowners’ communities on the ground, and should also be able to appoint management authorities.

In addition, there is no differentiation of management frameworks in accordance with different tasks of protected areas, making stewardship and incentives very difficult to realise. Otherwise, we think that the problematic areas will be ironed out in the implementation of the Bill, and we support the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill.

When it comes to the Environment Conservation Amendment Bill, my department has no comment on the content of the three amendments contemplated in the Bill. All three amendments are logical and fit in with the current policy framework for integrated pollution and waste management in the Republic of South Africa. My department would, however, like to comment on the implications of especially the amendment of section 20 of Act 73 of 1989, which deals specifically with waste management. We are aware that in all probability the function contemplated in section 20, once it has been transferred from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, will be devolved to the nine provinces.

This devolution of section 20 to the provinces will have significant financial and human resources implications for the provinces. As such, the constitutional principle of “funds follow function” should be adhered to in order to successfully implement section 20 of the Environment Conservation Act.

Furthermore, our department would like to suggest that a transitional period for the handover of functions from the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, and in all likelihood the nine provinces, be contemplated. The reason for this transitional period is so that the staff of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the nine provinces are able to work with the staff of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and, in so doing, build their capacity to perform the necessary functions effectively and economically. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry can work away the landfill permit backlogs that have accumulated over the years so that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the nine provinces do not inherit these backlogs.

When it comes to the third Bill, the Western Cape has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the National Environmental Management Second Amendment Bill on each occasion. Essentially, our comments have remained consistent due to inadequate revisions being made to the Bill. If the Bill is promulgated in its current form, several contradictions will exist in the law. This is of no benefit in assisting the national and provincial departments in achieving effective environmental management and sustainable development. There are a number of issues of principle where the department is at variance with the content of the Bill. Many of these issues of principle are based on the practical experience of the department in dealing with the current environmental legislative regime, particularly the current EIA regulations. The department is currently involved in a lawsuit in Pringle Bay where many of the issues raised in the comments on the Bill are relevant. This is but one example of the nature of the practical experience and lessons learnt from which the department has drawn in formulating comments on the Bill.

The nature of the competent authority is ambitious; examples are provided in the table where the MEC and the Minister are referred to as the competent authority, yet the definition given in section 1 - activities to which the legislation will apply - is not clear. Firstly, listed activities are poorly defined. In the second place, reference is made to class of activities and not to policy, programme, plan or project. No definition or context is provided for any of these items. The department has not provided alternative wording for the clauses of the Bill which are of concern, the reason being that these concerns are matters of principle rather than a question of wording.

When it comes to the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill, the reform of the current Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act has been long awaited. The new air quality Bill is therefore necessary to align our Constitution with the National Environmental Management Act. The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill further also supports the current policy framework provided by the integrated pollution and waste management policy. My department is aware of the implications of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill, especially in terms of improvements to the current system.

The major implication of this new piece of legislation is the human resources capacity and other financial resources which would be critical to perform the functions as indicated in the Bill. My department has raised the issue of unfunded mandates with the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism before when we commented on the many draft versions of the Bill. Funds therefore should follow function, otherwise we, once again, have legislation that cannot be properly implemented.

Voorsitter, ek wil net in my eie moedertaal vir Minister Valli Moosa hartlik bedank vir die geleentheid wat ek gehad het om saam met hom in die samewerkende regering van die Nuwe NP en die ANC in die Wes-Kaap te dien. Ons ondervinding was dat by Minmec’e mnr Valli Moosa altyd billik en regverdig opgetree het. Sy visie en versiendheid vir toerisme en omgewingsake sal baie gemis word. Ons weet nie of ons volgende jaar weer bymekaar sal kom nie, en daarom wil ek net namens die Wes-Kaapse regering vir Minister Valli Moosa sê baie sterkte, baie voorspoed. Ons is baie jammer dat u omgewingsake en toerisme vaarwel roep, maar wees verseker, ons het waardering vir wat u gedoen het in hierdie portefeulje. Baie, baie dankie daarvoor. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Chairperson, I would just like to thank Mr Valli Moosa heartily in my own mother tongue for the opportunity I had to serve in the co-operative government of the New NP and the ANC in the Western Cape. Our experience at Minmecs was that Mr Valli Moosa always acted fairly and justly. His vision and far-sightedness in respect of tourism and environmental affairs will be greatly missed. We do not know whether we will get together again next year, and therefore I would just like to say to Minister Valli Moosa, on behalf of the Western Cape government, everything of the best and great success. We sincerely regret your bidding environmental affairs and tourism goodbye, but rest assured, we have great appreciation for what you did in this portfolio. Thank you very much for that. [Applause.]]

Mr G B BHENGU (KwaZulu-Natal): Thank you, Deputy Chairperson. The provincial standing committee on the National Council of Provinces mandated me as a special delegate to support the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill, the nature conservation management Bill and the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill, and then mandated me to read to your good House a statement from the portfolio committee regarding this protected areas Bill.

The province of KwaZulu-Natal hereby wishes to express its serious concern regarding the process followed by the NCOP Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs with regard to the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill [B39-2003], with specific reference to the consideration, or rather the lack thereof, given to the KZN proposals on the Bill during the negotiating mandate and final voting mandate stage of the select committee deliberations.

The select committee, at its meeting held on 12 November 2003 to consider the negotiating mandates from the provinces, did not fully consider the KZN proposal, and cited insufficient time as the reason for not doing so. This KZN finds unacceptable, particularly since the meeting adjourned at lunch time. Instead, the select committee proposed that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism consider the KZN proposal and respond thereto. This we consider to be tantamount to abdicating the committee’s responsibility to the department.

On 18 November 2003 the KZN NCOP committee received a fax from the select committee, attaching what was referred to as the amendments from the negotiating mandates on which the committee achieved consensus. It referred to the protected areas Bill, among others. However, the letter clearly records that the select committee did not discuss the KZN proposals.

This is further amplified by a letter from the North West Provincial Legislature dated 19 November 2003, and tabled at the select commitee meeting on 24 November 2003, wherein it states that following the KwaZulu- Natal proposed amendment to the Bill, which our committee clearly refused to discuss, KZN maintains that the failure and/or refusal by the select committee to consider this proposal amounted to a serious miscarriage of justice. Not only was KwaZulu-Natal, as a province, deprived of an opportunity of stating its position, but we had made some substantive proposals without which we consider the Bill to be seriously flawed in certain major respects.

The select committee has not had the benefit of hearings. The document faxed to KZN on 18 November 2003 from the select committee ostensibly contained the department’s view on the KZN proposals, although two vital proposals listed in the KZN negotiating mandate were not addressed in this document at all.

Of the assumption that the document indeed represented the department’s view, the KZN portfolio committee on nature conservation and environmental affairs, as well as the KZN NCOP committee, met and considered these proposals. The KZN NCOP delegates were subsequently mandated to support the Bill subject to certain amendments proposed by KZN, as set forth in the document entitled Final Voting Mandate. The document was submitted to the select committee before its meeting, held on 24 November 2003, to consider the province’s final voting mandates. Some of the amendments proposed in the document contained alternatives to the original proposal contained in the negotiating mandate. However, at its meeting held on 24 November 2003, the committee refused to consider new proposals, and the department was not asked to comment thereon. This was another opportunity lost to the select committee.

The select committee generally failed to consider the KZN proposal at its meeting held on 24 Novemebr 2003. The KZN delegation was not afforded an opportunity to reopen the discussion or to take the committee through its proposal. Instead, a new document was circulated as being the …

[Interjections.]

Rev M CHABAKU: Hon Chair, with due respect to the hon member, Mr Bhengu, I wonder if there is any way that the Chair can protect us, the select committee, because some of the allegations are serious and others are faulty and erroneous. Although we have freedom of expression, these were not shared in the committee. So, I just wanted to know what kind of protection we can have through the Chairperson for the committee on this.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Can we allow Mr Bhengu to finish, then we look at the report after that, and then we make a ruling after that.

Mr G M BHENGU (KwaZulu-Natal): Thank you, Chair. As I stated, I was directed to read a statement from the province. This is not a personal input. I continue:

Instead, a new document was circulated as being the department’s response. The department was asked to address the committee on each of the KZN proposals, and …

[Interjections.]

… contained in the original negotiating mandate.

[Interjections.]

Mr B J TOLO: Chair, I think we need to know at what stage the member is going to begin to debate the Bill. May we please know?

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, will you continue.

Mr G M BHENGU (KwaZulu-Natal): I came here as a special delegate to put the point of view of the province. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Don’t respond to them. Continue with your speech. [Laughter.]

Mr G M BHENGU (KwaZulu-Natal): Thank you.

The province of KZN feels that it has been severely prejudiced in the process, and that on both the occasions mentioned, the select committee failed or refused to hear the province, or to properly consider its proposals. For this reason we, as a province, have been left with no alternative but to abstain from voting on the Bill.

Before I resume my seat, I must take this opportunity to congratulate … [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Your time has expired.

Mr G M BHENGU (KwaZulu-Natal): Despite the disturbances?

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Your time has expired.

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I’d like to say that my best wishes go out to you, Minister, as well. You have done a great job. You really have. We appreciate it and we wish you well.

This Bill, of course, is only a beginning, and is enabling also for a family of Bills. I am going to speak particularly about the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill, which is really a beginning, an enabling Bill. Important though it is, the real work is yet to come - much of it at local authority level and in terms of the concurrency provisions in Schedule 4, Part B, of the Constitution. This is all logical and good.

However, as my hon colleague here the hon Mrs Versfeld said, very often there is a mismatch between the relative players - the local authority and the polluter - in terms of their ability to do oversight, their relative influence, and so on. There are heavyweight people involved in this business, Minister. This is why the central Government is going to have to play a key role.

The sources and causes of air pollution are manifold. Interestingly enough, we have partial responsibility for the production of oxygen, because most people don’t realise that in the South Atlantic, in the South Pole, the krill produce more oxygen than the rainforests produce. So, South Africa has a very direct responsibility there in seeing that the krill resources are not attacked. That, in turn, will reflect upon air quality. Air pollution is probably the last effectively unregulated part of our global natural environment. I would say it is the last frontier. The trouble with air pollution is that everybody’s business is nobody’s business. One jurisdiction cleans air, only for it to move away with the prevailing wind, which, in turn, ushers in the pollution from the neighbouring areas. That is why the various states in the US are taking each other to court on these issues.

Though I am against overregulation, I wish to state categorically here today that experience has shown that polluters will pollute unless the law stops them. Everyone pays lip service to good air quality, but few will voluntarily make the investment. “You do it first”, is what people say. “Not now”; “Only on new plant”; “Later”; “Let’s phase it in”; “Give us five years”; and, “We cannot do it because we are going to be uneconomical compared to China”.

That’s nonsense, Minister. This is because you can look at the most successful economies in the world; the most successful societies in the world. They have the cleanest air in the world and they are the people making the biggest investment in improving air quality in the world.

So, for us to fall for those arguments that you will hear from industry as you go forward … Don’t fall for it, Minister. They will say to you that it can’t be done - “We don’t have the technology.” They will say the footprint is too big. They’ll say, “Let’s do trials first.” That takes them 10 years; and they keep you on a string. Don’t do it, Minister. Give them the cold-turkey treatment you gave them with the plastic bags. [Inaudible.] We support this legislation. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Dr E A CONROY: Hon Chairperson, Minister Moosa and colleagues, the four environmental Bills being debated today, namely those referring to protected areas, conservation, and air quality as well as the second amending Bill of the National Environmental Management Act, are once again so closely interlinked that is only logical for them to be dealt with in the same debate.

The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill forms part of a suite of legislation established to manage the environment. In essence, the Bill seeks to bring the system of protected areas in line with South Africa’s new constitutional and legal order. Accordingly, it consolidates and rationalises existing legislation on protected areas, whilst providing for the declaration and management of protected areas and establishing a national system of protected areas as part of a strategy to manage and conserve our beautiful country’s wonderful biodiversity.

The Environment Conservation Amendment Bill deals with matters relating to waste management and pollution control, and specifically seeks, firstly, to provide for the transfer of the administration of waste sites from the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry to the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism; secondly, to provide for the empowerment of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to make regulations to control certain products that may have a harmful or detrimental effect on the environment or human health if and when they reach the waste system; and, lastly, to provide for the empowerment of the Minister to make regulations to use financial mechanisms to encourage the reuse, reduction or recycling of specific waste types.

These amendments have been considered necessary as the provisions of the Environment Conservation Act, Act 73 of 1989, are not adequately able to give effect to the Government policy of integrated waste management. The primary objective is therefore … [Interjections.] Chair, could you please ask the hon members to have respect …

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Conroy, you are protected. Could the hon members please behave. Rev Chabaku and Ms Sono, could you please behave because your voices are too loud. You are disturbing the hon member. [Interjections.]

You can continue, Dr Conroy. Dr E A CONROY: Apology accepted. The primary objective is therefore to further facilitate general policy on integrated pollution control and waste management. The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill was introduced as a section 76 Bill by the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs at the request of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

For many years the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act of 1965, or the APPA for short, provided a sound basis for air pollution legislation in South Africa. However, its emphasis on point-source emission control has become outmoded and ineffective due to the development in environmental thinking about air quality control. Insufficient attention was previously paid to the ability of the receiving environment to cope with the pollution emitted from the different point sources.

The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill replaces the APPA. The fundamental difference between the APPA and the Bill under consideration is that the latter addresses the adverse impact of emissions into the receiving environment and sets stricter standards for ambient air. It is noted that the preamble to the Bill states that air pollution carries a high socioeconomic and environmental cost which is seldom borne by the polluter and that the burden of health impacts, associated with polluted ambient air, falls most heavily on the poor.

It is therefore to be hoped that the Bill will ultimately enable ambient air quality standards which are not harmful to the health of not only the privileged but also, more so, the disadvantaged sections of our community, and wellbeing to become the norm in all communities and moreover to ensure that this is achieved in a manner which will facilitate and enhance sustainable development.

The National Environmental Management Act of 1998, or Nema as it is normally referred to, gives a legal framework to the state’s constitutional obligations in terms of managing the environment. In terms of the Constitution every South African is guaranteed the right to an environment which is not harmful to their health and wellbeing.

In order to streamline the implementation of Nema, chapter 5 of the Act required amendment. The National Environmental Management Second Amendment Bill is therefore a further attempt to fill some of the gaps that have already been identified in respect of efficient and effective administration and enforcement of environmental legislation. The New NP supports these Bills. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you very much, Dr Conroy. Rev Chabaku, I am not sure why you left the Free State for Gauteng. [Interjections.] You are disturbing Gauteng. I am sure you will go back to the Free State. [Laughter.]

Mr R M NYAKANE: Madam Chair, I rise on behalf of the Limpopo legislature to support these four Bills tabled before us here this afternoon.

These Bills have been subjected to scrupulous interrogation at the committee stage by almost all members of the select committee. However, it is regrettable that some provinces have expressed exception to the passage of these Bills. The passage of these Bills and, importantly, the implementation thereof, are aimed at assuring everyone the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing. To have an environment protected against degradation is a constitutional right of everyone in South Africa.

The four Bills address a wide range of issues. There are, however, silent issues I would like to raise. Firstly, it is noted with appreciation that the establishment of the transborder protected areas is a boon to mankind. They have provided a link between the citizens of South Africa and the citizens of neighbouring countries like Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Botswana. They promote peace among people, communities and nations because of the common heritage these countries share.

The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has made a breakthrough in demonstrating the Government’s willingness and commitment to conserving nature and preserving life on this planet through the establishment and sustainment of protected areas.

The other issue I wish to highlight is that indigenous people should be encouraged to own and manage their sacred places, their archaeological and cultural heritage and their ceremonial objects. Sacred places need to be identified and designated and should enjoy legal protection. Indigenous people should access fauna and flora and other natural resources which are indispensable to their economy and rituals which take place at their sacred places. Laws have to be enacted to acknowledge the importance of sacred places.

Indigenous people should participate effectively in the management of protected areas. A concern is expressed regarding the absence of an instrument to protect the intellectual property of indigenous people with regard to their traditional knowledge, innovation systems and biological resources in order to guard aginst what we call “biopiracy activities”. I would like to make a few comments on poverty and protected areas. It is argued that protected areas cannot operate as islands of conservation divorced from the socioeconomic environment within which they operate. Poverty, hunger and land degradation have a profound influence on biodiversity and protected areas. Hence the adage that the hungry stomach knows no appetite.

Poverty is characterised by, inter alia, a lack of assets and opportunities, vulnerability, absence of power or voice. Protected areas can make a significant contribution to the alleviation of poverty. The Makuleke community, as the Minister knows, is a case in point.

To what extend are our local communities linked to these protected areas? Most local communities are located around protected areas and have very limited development opportunities. Given that protected areas generate significant economic and social benefits, they are ideally positioned to contribute towards poverty reduction.

Another issue I wish to highlight is a natural threat to the protected areas, a matter of great concern. This is the global climate change that can alter the physical parameters of our environment. As the climate changes, so do the ecosystem and species. A need for the introduction of new strategies with heavy cost implications to manage protected areas is bound to occur. As a result of the changes, the outbreak of unknown diseases and invasive island species are bound to occur, aggravating the financial burden on the state.

Another area of great concern is the unacceptable quality of atmospheric gas concentration which causes global climate change, in turn leading to the extinction of species. Climate change precipitated by the industrial carbon monoxide levels may result in high mortality of fauna and flora. As we heard yesterday, the Beijing and Montreal protocols stand to regulate substances that can deplete the ozone layer and thus expose the human body to destruction by the sun’s rays.

In the context of what I have said, Minister, the need for the passing of these Bills cannot be overemphasised. The Limpopo legislature supports the passing of the four Bills with no reservations. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

UMnu V V Z WINDVOЁL: Ngiyabonga, Mgcinisihlalo lohlon, kutfola lelitfuba lekutsi ngibe yincenye yalenkhulumomphikiswano. Sewubekile lomdzala longanga Mhlon Valli Moosa. Ukhulume kahle impela kwevakala, kwacaca kutsi lemitsetfo lesiyidzingidzako lamuhla nje icondze kuphi, nekutsi lelivekati laseNingizimu Afrika ilisa kuphi. Kantsi nasiHlalo, umFundisi Moatshe ukubekile waze wabeka nangesiBhunu kutsi umhlaba wonkhe waseNingizimu Afrika uve.

Ngitawutsandza kutsi ngicale inkhulumo yami ngekucaphuna kulamagama lalandzelako: Translation of Siswati paragraphs follows.)

[Mr V V Z WINDVOЁL: Thank you, hon Chairperson, for granting me this opportunity to participate in this debate. The respected Minister, hon Valli Moosa, has spoken. He spoke quite clearly and it was perfectly clear to everyone what the aim of the Bills that we are discussing is, and where they are leading the vast land of South Africa. The Chairperson and hon Rev Moatshe have also clearly stated their views; he even expressed them in Afrikaans so that all South Africans would understand.]

I would like to introduce my speech by quoting the following words:

The people of South Africa overwhelmingly voted for the ANC in 1994 and in 1999. These people believed, as they do now, that the policies of the ANC are a correct response to South Africa’s challenges.

This is a quotation from Sephadi. Those who do not know Sephadi must not think that it’s an endangered species of animal somewhere. Sephadi is the official journal of the ANC caucus. We would encourage members even from other parties to read that journal. It’s available free of charge. It is in that context that these Bills respond to global challenges that we have in terms of the protocols and treaties to which we are signatories as a country. They also respond to the World Summit on Sustainable Development Declaration, the World Parks Congress and the national imperatives of the country.

These Bills also ensure that legislation dealing with the environment conforms to the constitutional framework. For example, the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill repeals the outdated and unconstitutional APPA of 1965. The APPA is the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, because it may be mistaken for Apla, which was the military wing of the PAC.

Before my time is over, I must put the record straight. As the spokesperson for this committee - actually, I was just recently appointed by the Chairperson before we came to the Chamber - in a situation where you have the DA, ACDP, and all other parties supporting this Bill, all the other eight provinces supporting this Bill, and you have a province, which, correctly so, has a democratic right to abstain, it is not correct to mislead this House and the country by abusing the platform provided by this debate by saying that they were prejudiced or discriminated against.

When you check the statement from KwaZulu-Natal - I must say upfront that we really appreciate the work that they do, because they always come up with amendments and they always send special delegates - we must also encourage that those special delegates that they send must be consistent when dealing with one Bill. Unlike in a situation where, when there is a briefing, you have hon member A coming; and on negotiating mandate it’s hon member B, and for the final mandate it’s hon member C, and naturally, there will be some flaws and disjointed facts. Then, it also questions the quality of feedback that is given to that particular legislature. As I was coming here, one member said that the involvement of the DA in the government of that province may also be causing such problems. [Laughter.]

When you look on the first page at the covering letter, it says the select committee failed and/or refused to hear the province. I just took it as the statement being badly drafted, because if they say we failed to hear, it means we’ve got some form of disability; or if we refused to hear, maybe we closed our ears in the committee meeting, but they had written presentations and so on.

It must also be stated that they sent voluminous amendments, which we do appreciate and we gave time for the department to look into those amendments that the committee did not have time to look into. That was very fair, to say that the department must not just respond on their feet so that they have time to apply their minds and correctly respond to those amendments.

It is also in that light that we accepted a lot of those amendments. I can simply say that out of five amendments, four of them were accepted. But it is surprising that they even abstained from supporting those amendments which we did accept.

We are prepared, as members of the committee, together with the other provinces, to support their amendments which we did accept. They must also respect our democratic right to say that after we had interacted with some of the amendments we could not accept all of them. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Chairperson, let me at the outset express gratitude to those who participated in the debate and also to those who have expressed kind words. I just want to start off by quoting what the hon Nyakane said. He said: ``The need for the passage of these Bills cannot be overemphasised.’’ Those are the words which he used and I want to agree with those words fully. These are very far-reaching Bills. They take the environmental regime in this country to new heights. These are also Bills which are dealing with matters which are right at the frontiers of environmental protection.

You know, often people talk about international best practice. We are the frontrunners of that international best practice. There isn’t much better practice in many other parts of the world which we can really fall back on. So indeed this is very bold and it requires a tremendous amount of courage. I think it is understandable, as we have seen through the debates in the select committee and in the provinces on these Bills, that there would be a degree of hesitation and nervousness about these Bills. But the protection of the environment, as we have displayed in the nine and half years of democracy, does require courage and where we are able to display that generally the people of this country have come out in support of strong leadership on the protection of the environment, and this is what these pieces of legislation indeed give us.

Without responding to all the speakers - because much of what has been said has been stated and debated in the select committee - I should just say to the hon Bhengu that how he feels about some of the matters that he raised is understandable. However, as far as my information is concerned - I have been monitoring the process as it went through the select committee - all proposals that were tabled in the select committee were circulated and the department had given consideration to all of the proposals, whether or not they were asked to do so. But generally the department was always asked to do so by the chairperson.

I am also led to understand that the committee had given due regard to the amendments that were tabled by everybody and in many cases the amendments, including those amendments from KwaZulu-Natal, were accepted. I must say that this is not the place to say, ``we tabled an amendment which was not accepted by the select committee’’. That is not a good enough reason not to support legislation. It’s not a good enough reason. One has got to look at the overall thrust of legislation. In fact, nobody here knows what I would propose as legislation to Cabinet and which parts of that legislation Cabinet may not accept. That does not mean I am going to reject the legislation, because everything that you propose doesn’t get accepted. It happens in all committees and in all collectives as such.

But we were bound to have a situation with these pieces of cutting-edge legislation in which there would be vibrant debate. I must assure the Council that, on my part, I had taken extreme care over a period of a number of years to discuss and debate these matters at the executive level through the Minmec. In fact, about two years ago I convened a special weekend workshop of MECs that took place in the Eastern Cape - I do not remember the exact date now - hosted by the hon Godongwana. We spent the entire weekend just talking about the protected areas Bill, because of the far-reaching nature of this. And of course what this Bill does is to place additional responsibilities on all of us, because it implements to the fullest the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

It places additional responsibilities on the citizens of this country, the private sector, local government, the provinces and national Government. There is no way in which we can want to advance the cause of environmental protection without taking on additional responsibilities and duties and everything that goes with it. So it is not a good enough argument to say that a Bill would place more responsibility on us and therefore we are worried about accepting it. Are we only going to pass legislation which doesn’t leave us with more responsibility? I think that is something that has to be taken into account.

On the question of hunting, I must just say to the hon Versfeld that our position is absolutely clear. When it comes to national parks, they are incompatible with hunting. But bear in mind that as we sit here there is hunting going on in this country. Depending on who you speak to and from what point of view, from what religious and philosophical point of view, different views would be expressed on that particular matter. What this legislation now does is that it empowers Government to regulate the question of hunting even beyond national parks, if need be. It provides us with that opportunity. That is what it does. You are quite right that it doesn’t say that hunting is illegal as such. It disallows it as far as the national parks are concerned, and I can assure you that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism is not going to change the approach that we have taken up to now.

On the question of the definition of sustainable use, it is defined very clearly in the National Environmental Management Act and there is an internationally accepted concept of sustainable use, which was again endorsed by the global community at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and that is that human beings cannot exist other than by making use of natural resources. We breathe the air, we deplete the nutrients in the soil when we plant our vegetables and whatever other foodstuffs that we need to plant, and we use coal and oil in order to generate energy. We constantly use and deplete the resources of planet earth.

Sustainable use is a point of view which is now globally accepted, that is, that you can use natural resources in a sustainable manner - in a manner which will not deny future generations the use of them. And that is really the challenge that we have. I think this House knows very well - because we have debated it before - about the tremendous challenge we have in the sustainable use of our marine resources. It is an uphill battle. We have had great difficulty, but we have taken on that challenge and we have said we are not going to take so much fish from the sea that it will deny the fish stocks the ability to replenish themselves from season to season. It’s not an easy thing to do, and politically it is a difficult thing to do, as everybody knows. But it’s a challenge that we have taken on, because it’s the right thing to do, it’s the moral thing to do and our Constitution requires us to do that.

I am very pleased that we have also been able to consider the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Bill. It’s about time that this country had a decent air quality protection regime. The old Act is one which is completely outdated, which really makes it impossible for the authorities to deal with plants and enterprises that have been spewing out unacceptable emissions, particularly in urban areas, which affects the lives of people very directly. The hon Nyakane also raised the question of intellectual property and indigenous knowledge. The Department of Science and Technology is in the process of developing detailed legislation on the question of indigenous knowledge, the protection of indigenous knowledge and the rights to indigenous knowledge. This goes beyond the question of the environment, because it goes right across many fields, particularly the cultural field. And the view of Government is that we need to deal with this very difficult area. It is an extremely difficult area to deal with and to actually put into legislation, but we should deal with that in a comprehensive manner. I can assure you that that is something that is being dealt with.

The hon Gelderblom raised the question of funds following functions. I can assure you, as you know I have done at our Minmec meetings, that it is the policy of national Government that funds must follow functions. That is the policy and it’s one which will be implemented. You are quite right that the legislation itself does not delegate the management of landfill sites to provinces. So as we look at the legislation here provinces cannot ask: Where is the money? Because the legislation which the Council is considering today is not delegating anything to provinces. But what it does is that it creates the possibility for delegation to provinces at some point in the future.

And this matter arose because provinces themselves raised this question at the Minmec many years ago. I can remember very clearly that the Gauteng province said that the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry had inherited this function somehow but it was better suited to provincial departments. That is how we began this whole process of policy-making and decided to move it to Environmental Affairs and Tourism, so that certain categories of landfill sites, especially those that do not deal with toxic waste, etc, could possibly be delegated to provinces, and that is indeed the vision.

I think you made a useful comment that there should be a good transition period between the two departments. Let me assure you that we will take that into account. The director-general is here. He heard your comments on that also and we will ensure that funds do follow functions. But bear in mind that provinces themselves have expressed the view to me that these functions are underfunded. So it becomes a complicated bureaucratic exercise but we must take it on. The fact that it is complicated doesn’t mean that we should run away from it. Some of these functions have not necessarily been adequately budgeted for and that is partly the reason why this legislation becomes important.

I must express gratitude to Rev Moatshe and his select committee for the tremendous amount of work that they have done and the time and energy that they have put into this legislation. And I can assure you that we have a wonderful team in the department - the director-general and his team who are here. They are a great team. You know many of my fellow environmental ministers around the world - including those in Europe - always say to me they wish they had experts like we have in this Government when they interact with this team.

So they have done a tremendous job, but I think had it not been for the select committee we would not have been where we are today. So thank you very much, and I can assure you that when future generations look back they will indeed say that this select committee was bold enough to take far- reaching decisions which will leave a historical mark. Thank you. [Applause.]

Debates concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question in respect of the third Order. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. Question put: That the Bill be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?

HON MEMBERS: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their own declaration of vote if they so wish. Gauteng?

Declarations of vote:

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Chair of Chairs, hon Minister and members, Gauteng wishes to state that they do not disagree with or oppose policies of the Bills, but because of bureaucratic processes they were not able to give a final mandate.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: We shall now proceed to voting on the question. KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: IKwaZulu-Natal iyavumelana nalawa amathathu. Ngizowasho. Iyavumelana ne National Environmental Management Second Amendment Bill … [Ubuwele-wele.] [KwaZulu-Natal agrees with these three. I will name them. It agrees with the National Environmental Management Second Amendment Bill … [Interjections.]]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Member Vilakazi, we are going to deal with the Bills one by one.

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Yinye abangavumelani nayo, abayiqhelisayo. Yileya … [Ubuwele-wele.] [There is one which they do not agree with, which they reject. It is that … [Interjections.]]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Qha. Masivumelane kuqala ukuthi sizobheka umthethosivivinywa ngamunye ngendlela elandelana ngayo. [No. Let us agree first that we will consider each Bill individually according to the order in which they appear.]

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Ngiyathokoza kakhulu. [I am very happy with that.]

Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Voorsitter, die veerteenwoordigers van die Noord-Kaap op die komitee distansieer hulle van die aantygings van KwaZulu-Natal ten opsigte van die prosedure wat die gekose komitee gevolg het om die voorgestelde wysigings van die provinsie te akkommodeer of nie te akkommodeer nie. Die Noord-Kaap-afvaardiging bedank die voorsitter vir die leierskap wat hy in die proses getoon het, die wyse waarop hy die besware hanteer het en die tyd wat hy afgestaan het om die voorgestelde wysigings van die provinsies, veral KwaZulu-Natal, te hanteer. Dit is prysenswaardig.

Die aantygings van KwaZulu-Natal en nou van Gauteng is aantygings teen die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies se bevoegdheid om wetsontwerpe te hanteer. Gelukkig is dit duidelik dat ten opsigte van hierdie saak en KwaZulu-Natal dit eerder ‘n terugwys is na ‘n “fight-back” mentaliteit wat in die provinsie posgevat het, wat hulle isoleer en ondoeltreffend maak. Ons hoop dat die benadering gou sal verdwyn. Die Noord-Kaap bedank die Minister en die departement vir hulle betrokkenheid by ons omgewing. Die Noord-Kaap steun die wetgewing. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, the representatives of the Northern Cape in the committee wish to distance themselves from the allegations by KwaZulu-Natal with regard to the procedure the select committee followed to accommodate or not to accommodate the proposed amendments of the province. The Northern Cape delegation thanks the chairperson for the leadership he displayed in the process, the manner in which he dealt with the objections and the time that he sacrificed to deal with the proposed amendments of the provinces, especially KwaZulu-Natal. This is commendable.

The allegations by KwaZulu-Natal and now by Gauteng are allegations against the competence of the National Council of Provinces to deal with Bills. Fortunately it is clear that with regard to this matter and KwaZulu-Natal, it points instead to a “fight back” mentality that has arisen in the province, which isolates them and renders them ineffective. We hope that the approach will disappear soon. The Northern Cape thanks the Minister and the department for their involvement in our environment. The Northern Cape supports the legislation.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon members, we will then now proceed to voting. The third Order of the Day is the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill that we will be voting on. I shall do so in alphabetical order. The Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Iyixhasa ngokupheleleyo. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: Ons steun dit 100%. [We support it 100%.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Abstain.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyaziqhelanisa. [We abstain.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a e thekga. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Northern Cape iyavuma. [Northern Cape agrees.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West ke a rona. [North West supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Ms N D NTWANAMBI: Western Cape will support.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Eight provinces have voted in favour and one abstained. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65. [Applause.] [Interjections.]

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Excuse me, Chairperson, for KwaZulu-Natal I said: Siyaziqhelanisa. That means we abstain.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Okay, that means seven provinces are in agreement and two are abstaining. Nevertheless, the Bill is agreed to. [Applause.]

Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

I shall put the question in respect of the fourth Bill, that is, the Environmental Conservation Amendment Bill. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. Question put: That the Bill agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to voting on the question. I thought that Gauteng …

Declaration of vote:

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Chair, I just wanted to confirm to the Chair that Gauteng would abstain in respect of all four Bills.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Can we do so as we call Bill by Bill?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Okay.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: We shall now proceed to voting on the question. I shall do so in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: The Eastern Cape supports the Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: We support the Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Gauteng abstains.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyavumelana. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a dumela. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Ke wa rona. [We support.] The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Re e a o thekga. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: The North West supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Did I call KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Iyavumelana. [Agrees.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Okay. Eight provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill … [Applause.] [Interjections.]

Mr C ACKERMANN: You didn’t call the Western Cape.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I didn’t call the Western Cape? I am sorry. The Western Cape?

Mr C ACKERMANN: Are you doing so now?

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Yes, I am doing so now.

Mr C ACKERMANN: The Western Cape supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Eight provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65. [Applause.]

Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

I shall now put the question in respect of the fifth Order. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. Question put: That the Bill be agred to.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. They are all present? I shall first allow the provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish.

Declaration of vote:

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Chair of chairs, hon Minister and members, Gauteng wishes to state that they do not disagree with the policies of the Bills, but because of bureaucratic processes are not able to give a final mandate.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do so in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Re dumelana le wona. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: We support.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Gauteng abstains. The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Sithi elethu. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a e thekga. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga i khou tenda. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Re a dumelana. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: Ke a rona. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr C ACKERMANN: We support. The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Eight provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

I shall now put the question in respect of the sixth order. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. Question put: That the Bill be agreed to.

The CHAIRPSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish. Gauteng?

Declaration of vote:

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Chair of chairs, Gauteng wishes to state that they do not disagree with the policies of the Bill, but because of bureaucratic processes are not able to give a final mandate.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do so in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: The Eastern Cape supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: Free State supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Gauteng abstains.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyavumelana. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Ha yi seketela. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Ons steun. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: Re e nesetsa pula. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr C ACKERMANN: Die Wes-Kaap steun die wetgewing. [The Western Cape supports the legislation.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Eight provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

Mr V V Z WINDVOЁL: Chairperson, with due respect, I think it is important that a clarification should be made on the declaration from Gauteng, whether they are speaking about bureaucratic processes within the province or they are saying it is a bureaucratic process in the NCOP or in the select committee, because it may leave an impression that our bureaucratic processes in the select committee have maybe prejudiced them.

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Chair, I think it is within the Gauteng province.

         ELECTION OF PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT REPRESENTATIVES

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Thank you, Chairperson. We have to place these names before the House, given that the decision is not one which we can take in respect of section 75 or section 76 procedures. It therefore would be a decision taken in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. We have previously agreed the composition of the five representatives to the Pan- African Parliament. We now have names on which the Houses must decide. Members will recall that our five representatives to the Pan-African Parliament are designated by Parliament. Therefore, both Houses decide on our representatives.

The reason that the Houses are making the decisions separately is linked to the fact that both in our Constitution and our Rules we do not as yet have a provision or procedure for joint decision-making by the Houses sitting together. We therefore decide separately on the proposed nominees. I wish to propose the nominees individually to allow the provincial delegation heads an opportunity to indicate their views on the nominees by voting. I would put as the first nominee, Dr Frene Ginwala. Question put: That the nomination be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are they all present? In accordance with Rule 71 … [Interjections.]

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I am afraid the Western Cape is unable to take a decision because they did not have the opportunity of consulting on the matter. It is not that I am against it. It is just that I don’t know what to do and there has been no consultation. So, I am afraid I would not be able to participate and neither would my colleague. I don’t think so.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Can I call upon the Chairperson of the NCOP?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Really the Chair should decide this matter. There have been various meetings at which the procedures have been agreed. Provinces have participated in those meetings. It is a matter today for us to determine the representatives. These are the names we are putting forward and the provinces must indicate a view. Political parties and Whips of both Houses have had an opportunity to consider these matters, and we are therefore now at a point where we must decide.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! We are proceeding. In accordance with Rule 71, I shall now allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. There is none. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do so in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting on the name of Dr Frene Noshir Ginwala. Can I call upon the Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Besiyinxalenye yesigqibo ngoko. Siyalixhasa igama lakhe. [We were part of the decision, so we support her name.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State? Rev M CHABAKU: Re tla reng? Re a e tlatsa. [Do we support? We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Gauteng e a tlatsa. [Gauteng supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyavuma. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Ke laka leo. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Elethu. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Re a dumela. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Ke ya rona. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr K D S DURR: We support.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All nine provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the nomination of Dr Frene Ginwala agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

Nomination accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Can we proceed, hon Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Chairperson, I nominate with great pleasure, the hon Mninwa Johannes Mahlangu.

Question put: That the nomination be agreed to. The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. They are all present. In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do so in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Mpumalanga and Limpopo, can you please see to it that you are ready to vote. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: iEastern Cape iyalixhasa. [Eastern Cape supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: Re a e tlatsa. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng? Ms D M RAMODIBE: Gauteng e a tlatsa. [Gauteng supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyavumelana. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a dumela. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Northern Cape siyavuma. [Northern Cape supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Ke ya rona. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr K D S DURR: We support.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All provinces have voted in favour. [Applause.] I therefore declare the name agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

Nomination accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Chair, the nominee I wish to present to the House is the hon Makhosazana Abigail Alicia Njobe.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Makhosazana Abigail Alicia Njobe has been nominated. I shall now put the question. The question is that the nomination be agreed to. Question put: That the nomination be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the name. I shall do so in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Supports the name.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: Re a e tlatsa. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Gauteng e a tlatsa. [Gauteng supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyavuma. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo? Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a dumela. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Ondersteun. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Re tsamaelana le lona. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr K D S DURR: We support.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the name agreed to. [Applause.]

Nomination accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution. The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Chair, the fourth nomination I present to the House is the name of Dr Barend Leenderd Geldenhuys.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: The name of Dr Barend Leenderd Geldenhuys has been nominated. The question is that the nomination be agreed to. Question put: That the nomination be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision in dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall proceed with the nomination. I have satisfied myself that the delegation heads are present. In accordance with Rule 79(1), I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the name. I shall do so in alphabetical order. Please indicate whether you are voting in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Sithi makangene naye. [We support the nomination.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: Al is u onbekend, ons sal dit steun. [Although we do not know you, we support you.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Re a dumela. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyavuma. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Ke laka leo. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Noord-Kaap steun. [Northern Cape supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Ke ya rona. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr K D S DURR: The Western Cape supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the nomination of Dr Barend Leenderd Geldenhuys agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

Nomination accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

[The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Ke a leboga, Monnasetulo. Leina la bofelo le ke le baying ke la ga Porofesara Hariett Ngubane. [Thank you, Chairperson. The last person I want to nominate is Prof Hariett Ngubane.] The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEE: Leina la ga Porofesara Harriet Ngubane le sweditswe. [Prof Hariett Ngubane has been nominated.]

I shall now put the question. The question is that the nomination be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish.

Declaration of vote:

Rev M CHABAKU: Chairperson, I want state quite clearly that we are very appreciative of the fact that in this delegation, for once, we have three women and two men forming the delegation. This is progressive, and therefore we’ll endorse this enthusiastically. Merci beaucoup!

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Procedurally, we have to do this province by province. I therefore put the name of Dr Hariett Ngubane. Mandibize iMpuma Koloni. [Let me ask the Eastern Cape.]

Ms B N DLULANE: Ngokunjalo uMam’uNgubane siyamxhasa. [We also support the nomination of Dr Ngubane.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: Le ha ho se na Mosotho le Motswana, mme re a mo amohela. [Even if there is no Mosotho or Motswana, we accept her.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Gauteng e a tlatsa. [Gauteng supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyavuma. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a dumela. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga? Ms M P THEMBA: Ke ya rona. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Re a e amogela. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Ke ya rona. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr K D S DURR: The Western Cape supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All nine provinces have voted in favour of Prof Hariett Ngubane. [Applause.]

Nomination accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

Rev Chabaku, I think that we are all South Africans. Basotho le Batswana. [Sothos and Tswanas.] We are a rainbow nation. We have to accept that. Thank you very much.

Hon Chairperson, let me thank you for putting the names of the five delegates from the South African Parliament to represent us in the Pan- African Parliament. We hope that they will carry the mandate of this Parliament and will represent us honestly in the Pan-African Parliament. Thank you very much for putting the names forward. [Applause.]

   CONSIDERATION OF TENTH REPORT OF WORKING GROUP ON AFRICAN UNION

Mr M J MAHLANGU: Thank you, Chairperson, once more for giving me an opportunity to pronounce myself on the Tenth Report of the Working Group on the Pan-African Parliament. Before I do that, do allow me an opportunity to thank the Chairperson of the NCOP, who nominated me to represent the Council and the Parliament of South Africa in the Pan-African Parliament, and furthermore, to thank you all - all provinces and members of this Council - for supporting my name so that I should go and represent you in the Pan-African Parliament. I wish to thank you dearly. [Applause.]

Chairperson, allow me also to thank you and every one of the members for the fact that you actually voted for all the names of the people who will be representing the South African Parliament at the Pan-African Parliament. I think it’s a wonderful achievement and I also wish to congratulate those members from the National Assembly who will be going together with me to represent you at the Pan-African Parliament. I once more wish to thank you as members of the Council.

Having said that, you would realise that we have followed all the criteria set out in the protocol. When I tabled the eighth and the ninth reports in this House, and when I repeatedly - I think twice - briefed the members of the Council, I did indicate what would be the criteria for electing these members to represent the South African Parliament at the Pan-African Parliament. One of those criteria was that the members must reflect our political diversity. I am sure you have realised the five members that are elected do reflect the political diversity. You are aware that there are three members that come from the ruling party and two that come from other political parties. If I am not mistaken, Dr Geldenhuys comes from the New NP and Prof Hariett Ngubane comes from the IFP. So, we have tried and this is what you have done. You have reflected the requirements of the protocol, that we should have that political diversity represented at the Pan-African Parliament.

The other criterion which is quite important, and which is required by the protocol itself, is that at least one of the five members should be a woman. South Africa has actually set a record, as we have agreed in our Parliament that out of the five members of the delegation, three will be women. We have satisfied that agreement. We have three women amongst the five members of the delegation that will represent us. I think that’s a great achievement. I would want to see what other parliaments are going to do. I think we are going to be the first one to have three women in a delegation of five. But let’s wait and see when we go there.

Having said that …

Mr P A MATTHEE: That makes your election even more impressive.

Mr M J MAHLANGU: Is that so? Let me indicate that these members that have been elected today will have to join the Working Group on the African Union forthwith so that they begin to acquaint themselves with all the work that has been done, and the discussions which have been undertaken by the Working Group on the African Union. Secondly, they will have to have access to all the documents, not just those which served before the working group, but also the protocol itself, so that they can begin to do some work, preparing for our participation in the inauguration session in Addis Ababa next year.

Let me come to the report itself, just to make one or two comments. You will remember that I said to you in this House that the inauguration of the Pan-African Parliament would take place late in January. The suggestion was that it would be the third week of January. There has been a change and the announcement has been made. The inauguration of the Pan-African Parliament will only take place in March 2004. And the venue, I repeat, is Addis Ababa, in Ethiopia.

The following issues are being discussed by the working group and they have not been finalised. Firstly, there is the issue of the draft oath. What should the oath look like? When the people take the oath in an inauguration session in March, all of them will have to take the oath. We are discussing a draft and other parliaments are also discussing it. At the end of the day, we will have to agree on a common oath that all of us are going to take when we come to the Pan-African Parliament.

The second issue that we are discussing is that of the theme. What theme are we going to debate when we come to the Pan-African Parliament? We as a Parliament need to know it, particularly what it will be at its first sitting. We will have to think and say what it is that we want to tell the African people about the Pan-African Parliament itself. The discussion around that during this morning’s session in the working group was that perhaps we should not be specific on the theme at the present moment. We would like to look at the broad vision of the Pan-African Parliament itself, so that people begin to grasp why we have formed this Pan-African Parliament and what its vision is. Broadly, people will begin to debate that, but it will be in a very broad sense. We are not going to draft the vision and say that this is the vision. But the theme will revolve around the vision of the Pan-African Parliament itself.

The other issue which is still being considered, is the types of committees that we would like to set up in the Pan-African Parliament. The very first meeting will have to come out with a few committees that will deal with the issues of the Pan-African Parliament. First and foremost we would like to look at, for example, the business committee that will take care of the business of the Pan-African Parliament. We would like to come up with a committee which would perhaps be the rules committee, which will begin to draft the rules of the Pan-African Parliament, so that we can be in such a position that when we debate, we do it according to the rules, and when we take decisions, we are guided by the rules as to how we take decisions, and many other related matters.

But those committees aside, the Pan-African Parliament will begin to reflect on which other portfolio committees it would like to establish, such as a human rights portfolio committee perhaps, or a gender committee. I am just putting those as an idea. But we will have to reflect on which other committees we would like to establish when we go there, because we will need these committees to do some work, once the Pan-African Parliament has adjourned.

The last issue that I would like to indicate, and which the working group is dealing with, is the resolution of the joint committee which we need to establish in Parliament. I reported to you, when I deliberated on the eighth and the ninth reports, that we would like to establish such a committee. The committee that we would like to establish would be a joint one, and would actually look at how we will receive mandates from our parliaments, and what the mechanisms of accountability and reporting back to our parliaments could be. So, that committee will be established and the members will then, together with the committee, sit down, discuss and reflect upon the issues.

We have not finalised all the issues that I have just reported on to the Council. They are before the working group and we will deal with these issues. I suspect that the working group might be called earlier. They might even want to meet once or twice during the recess because there is an enormous amount of work that they have to do and they have to prepare themselves for the inauguration session in March.

Having said that, I want to end by saying that all five members, if I may take this opportunity, will be dedicated and loyal, and will work with very great enthusiasm to represent our country and our Parliament. We commit ourselves to come back to our Parliament, to report and share ideas with you. We will remember that when we go there, it’s a matter of sharing ideas. It’s a continental organisation where we will debate issues and come back and give feedback to our parliaments.

I wish to take this opportunity to say thank you very much. I move that this Council should adopt the tenth report. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Report be adopted.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes.

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish.

Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, on a point of order: Amongst the Whippery we also agreed that parties, if they wished, could contribute here.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, this is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. Whatever the Whips have decided, the ruling and the rule is that we have to follow the Constitution of this country, namely section 65, in dealing with the matter. It’s not a party matter. It is a matter that has to be dealt with in terms of section 65. I am sure that we are not going to argue about that, Mr Van Niekerk. Can we proceed?

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow the provinces to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. We shall do so in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads should please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from the voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Siyayamukela. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: We support.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Gauteng supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyavumelana. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a dumela. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga supports. The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Re a e amogela. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Ke ya rona. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr K D S DURR: Support.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All nine provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

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

Debate concluded.

The Council adjourned at 17:24. ____ ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism:

 (1)    The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 26 November 2003  in  terms
     of Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bill  as  a  section
     75 Bill:


     (i)      Powers,  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Parliament   and
          Provincial Legislatures Bill [B 74 - 2003] (National  Assembly
          - sec 75)


 (2)    The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 26 November 2003  in  terms
     of Joint Rule 160(4), classified the following Bill  as  a  section
     76 Bill:
     (i)     Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Bill [B  72  -
          2003] (National Assembly - sec 76)

1. Assent by President in respect of Bills:

 (1)    Natural Scientific Professions Bill [B 56D - 2002] - Act  No  27
     of 2003 (assented to and signed by President on 25 November 2003).

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

 (1)    Bills passed by National Assembly on 26 November 2003:


     (i)     Spatial Data Infrastructure Bill [B 44D -  2003]  (National
              Assembly - sec 75)


     (ii)    Alteration of Sex Description and Sex Status Bill [B 37D  -
              2003] (National Assembly - sec 75)
     (iii)   General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill  [B  47D  -  2003]
              (National Assembly - sec 75)


      (iv)    Petroleum Products Amendment Bill [B 25D - 2003] (National
              Assembly - sec 75)


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


     (vi)    Local Government: Municipal Systems Amendment Bill  [B  49D
              - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75)


     (vii)   Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill  [B  1D
              - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75)


 (2)    Bill passed by National Council  of  Provinces  on  26  November
     2003:


     (i)     Traditional Leadership and  Governance  Framework  Bill  [B
          58B - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 76)

1. Introduction of Bills:

 (1)    The Speaker and the Chairperson:


     The following Bill was  introduced  by  the  Ad  Hoc  Committee  on
     Powers and Privileges of Parliament on 27 November 2003:


     (i)      Powers,  Privileges  and  Immunities  of  Parliament   and
          Provincial Legislatures Bill [B 74 - 2003] (National  Assembly
          - sec 75)

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces: Papers:

1. The Minister of Finance: Report and Financial Statements of the South African Revenue Services (SARS) for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2002-2003 [RP 191-2003].

2. The Minister of Trade and Industry:

 Report  and  Financial  Statements  of   the   Industrial   Development
 Corporation of South Africa Limited  for  the  year  ended  June  2003,
 including the Report of  the  Independent  Auditors  on  the  Financial
 Statements for the year ended June 2003.

1. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:

 (a)    Government Notice No R1660 published in  Government  Gazette  No
     25695 dated 12 November 2003: Regulations regarding reparations  to
     victims  in  terms  of  the  Promotion  of   National   Unity   and
     Reconciliation Act, 1995 (Act No 34 of 1995).


 (b)    Government Notice No R1623 published in  Government  Gazette  No
     25666 dated 7 November 2003: Amendment of regulations in  terms  of
     the Debt Collectors Act, 1998 (Act No 114 of 1998).

1. The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:

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

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

1. Third Report of the Joint Budget Committee, dated 20 November 2003: Insert 1ATC2611e.doc

National Council of Provinces:

1. Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 69 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 77), dated 26 November 2003:

   The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 69 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 77), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.

2. Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill [B 71 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 77), dated 26 November 2003: The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill [B 71 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 77), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.

3. Report of the Select Committee on Social Services on the Electoral Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 73 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 26 November 2003:

   The Select Committee on Social Services, having considered the subject of the Electoral Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 73 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.

4. Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Judicial Matters Second Amendment Bill [B 41B - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 26 November 2003:

   The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the subject of the Judicial Matters Second Amendment Bill [B 41B - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.

   The Committee, however, wishes to report further, as follows:

   The Committee, during the course of its deliberations on the Bill, raised a number of questions regarding certain clauses and, because of time restraints, requests the Department to report back to this Committee on these issues as early as possible during the 2004 session of Parliament, and where necessary to submit appropriate legislative proposals:

   (1) Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), by obliging presiding officers to take a pre-trial services report into account during bail proceedings if such a report is available. The purpose of a pre-trial services report is to assist the court in making a decision regarding the release of a person on bail. The Committee notes the request of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development in its report on the Bill that the Department must undertake a feasibility study of rolling out the existing four pilot projects sites relating to pre-trial services with the view to eventually having comprehensive pre-trial services available at all courts in the country. This Committee requests the Department, during this feasibility study, to also look into the linkages between the pre-trial services project and the Aphis Project and, in the process thereof, to undertake a cost benefit analysis of both projects to ensure that scarce resources will not be inappropriately utilised if there is a duplication of processes or if the one project seems to be better placed than the other to achieve the goals set out above.

   (2) Clause 5 deals with problems surrounding the interpretation of section 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977. While endorsing the amendment in principle, the Committee requests the Department to consider and submit a minor amendment to the proviso contained in the clause as soon as circumstances permit, to the effect that a court may not impose the punishments referred to in the said section 276 if the court is obliged to impose a sentence contemplated in section 51(1) or (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997, and not if the court intends to impose such a sentence, as the proviso is currently worded.

   (3) Clause 6 of the Bill entitles victims of crime to have a say when the accused person in question is considered for parole or correctional supervision by a Parole Board. While welcoming a provision of this nature, the Committee raises the following questions: * Why is this right only limited to victims of crime who are present when sentence is imposed?

       *   Should a mechanism not be put in place in the  legislation
         that  will  ensure  the  confidentiality   surrounding   the
         identity and whereabouts of any victim who supplies  his  or
         her name and address?
   
   
       The Committee requests the Department to take these issues  up
       with the Department of Correctional Services  and  to  address
       them by way of appropriate legislative proposals which must be
       submitted to Parliament at  the  first  available  opportunity
       during the 2004 session of Parliament.  The following  wording
       could possibly be considered as a basis for this purpose:
   
   
         "(e)The directives contemplated in this subsection -
             (i)     must provide for prescripts to ensure that  the
                    identity and whereabouts of  any  complainant  or
                    relative,  as  the  case   may   be,   are   kept
                    confidential;  and
             (ii)    may provide for prescripts on how a complainant
                    or relative may be informed of his or  her  right
                    as contemplated in this section if he or she  was
                    not in court when the court sentenced the  person
                    in question.".
   
   
       Pending the enactment of amending  legislation  to  deal  with
       confidentiality of victims, the Department, when  implementing
       this legislation, must put administrative measures in place to
       ensure that confidentiality is maintained.
   

   (4) Clause 11 deals with provisions in the Divorce Act, 1979, revolving around the sharing of pension benefits on divorce. The Committee requests the Department to investigate the possibility of allowing the spouse who is not a member of a pension fund to gain access to her or his share of the pension benefit at the time of divorce and not only when the pension benefits eventually accrue to the spouse who is a member of the fund.

   (5) Clause 25 is an empowering provision, allowing the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, when making regulations, to criminalise any act or omission contemplated in the regulations dealing with manuals as contemplated in the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000. The Committee, while recognising the fact that numerous Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation already empower members of the Executive to make regulations which criminalise various acts or omissions, raised a concern regarding the desirability of creating offences in terms of subordinate legislation, which is not easily accessible to members of the public. The Committee consequently requests the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, or possibly the South African Law Reform Commission, to initiate an investigation into the desirability and even the constitutionality of all provisions of this nature on the Statute Book. Report to be considered.

5. Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the Hearings Concerning the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, dated 26 November 2003:

Insert 4ATC2611e.doc