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

NEW MEMBERS (Announcement)

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Before we come to the first item on the Agenda, we would once again like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Constitutional Assembly where we are about to enter the Second Reading of the Bill.

I have an announcement to make with regard to some of the vacancies which have occurred in this Assembly, and which have subsequently been filled, owing to the resignation of Messrs A T Meyer and P W Saaiman and Dr P J Welgemoed. The vacancies have been filled in terms of section 44(2) of the Constitution by the nomination of Messrs F P Smit, A E Reeves and K J Modise, with effect from 1, 19 and 24 April 1996 respectively. We welcome the members.

The vacancy in the National Assembly owing to the resignation of Mr S J Macozoma has been similarly filled by the nomination of Mr M Mpehle with effect from 6 May 1996. [Applause.]

The new members were sworn in during private ceremonies—not secret, but private-on 30 April 1996 and 6 May 1996 respectively.

CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS BY CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE DURING SECOND READING (Draft Resolution)

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITU- TIONAL ASSEMBLY: Coming back to the Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill, 1996, it has been recommended by the management committee which met this morning that a resolution should be passed by this Assembly to enable provisions of the Bill to be referred back to the Constitutional Committee during the course of the Second Reading for possible amendment.

Before I call upon Mr Wessels, the Deputy Chairperson, to address us in this regard, I want to say that the management committee has agreed that our proceedings should last until 18:00 this evening and that we should reconvene tomorrow from 10:00 to 12:00, and that from 12:00 the Constitutional Committee should meet to consider whatever amendments may be put to it. The management committee has already identified a few that are presently being processed by sub- committees that were set up for this purpose. The Constitutional Committee will therefore definitely meet to consider a number of amendments. I would like to ask the Deputy Chairperson to address us and to put forward certain proposals whereafter we will need to take a decision.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Mr Chairperson, as you indicated, it has been agreed amongst the parties that during the course of this Second Reading debate certain provisions of the Bill should be referred to the Constitutional Committee for possible amendment. As we know, the Rules as they stand at this moment do not provide for such an event. As you have indicated, Mr Chairperson, provision has been made for the Constitutional Committee to sit tomorrow between 12:30 and 15:00.

The committee will, after deliberation, immediately submit to the Constitutional Assembly any amendments it sees fit to make, including consequential amendments. Such amendments will then be deemed to be part of the Bill as placed before the Assembly for Second Reading. Accordingly, I would like to move as follows:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Standing Rules to the contrary:

1. The Chairperson may, during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill containing the recommended new constitutional text, direct that a provision or provisions of the Bill be referred to the Constitutional Committee for reconsideration; and
2. after due consideration of the relevant provision or provisions of the Bill, the Constitutional Committee shall effect, such amendments to those sections, as well as consequential amendments, as it sees fit and forthwith submit such amendments, if any, to the Constitutional Assembly. Such amendments shall be deemed to be part of the Bill as placed before the Assembly for Second Reading.

Agreed to.

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA BILL (Second Reading debate)

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! We now come to the first item on our Agenda, namely the Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill. The debate will be informally structured in two parts, the first of which will focus on the preamble to the constitution, as well as Chapter 3, which deals with co-operative government; Chapter 4, which deals with Parliament; Chapter 5, which deals with the President and the national executive; Chapter 6, which deals with provinces; and Chapter 7, which deals with local government.

The second part of the debate, which is due to start after the lunch break tomorrow, will deal with the founding provisions, the Bill of Rights and Chapters 8 to 14, which deal with courts and the administration of justice. State institution supporting constitutional democracy, public administration, security services, traditional leaders, finance and general provisions.

I would now like to call on the hon the Deputy Chairperson to speak to us.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Mr Chairperson, I am in favour of the Bill being read a second time. This is not a Second Reading speech in the true sense of the word. It is merely a report on progress since we last met.

When the Bill had been tabled and the First Reading debated, the Constitutional Committee met, divided into various subcommittees, spent long hours considering the various amendments placed before those subcommittees and subsequently received reports from those subcommittees. Furthermore, long hours were then spent in each other’s company in an effort to resolve all the outstanding matters.

As we have just reported, not all the matters placed before us then have been resolved as yet, hence the option and the route that we have taken, namely to allow discussions on those topics to continue. The document before us is the ninth edition of the Bill, as amended.

It is not my brief to explain all the agreements reached and amendments effected to the Bill to this Constitutional Assembly. However, as we place the chapters before the Constitutional Assembly parties will once again be granted the opportunity to explain their viewpoints, to declare their positions on the various topics and, in their representations, to indicate to the Constitutional Assembly whether these amendments which have been effected meet with their expectations, as reflected in the amendments they placed before the Constitutional Committee.

It is not my brief to make a speech full of sweet-sounding phrases. I believe I will have that opportunity on Wednesday. Therefore, speeches full of sweet-sounding phrases should be reserved for Wednesday because we still have a lot of work to do.

However, I do believe it is opportune at this stage, since this is a report about the work in progress, to reflect once again, for the record, on how indebted we all are to the executive director and his staff members for assisting us by working so diligently throughout this whole process. I believe that when history reflects what happened, they will be mentioned favourably. The assistants and experts of the various political parties assisted their party colleagues in advancing their viewpoints, as placed on record through the various amendments.

We are now moving beyond the phase in which we had side-bar notes in the constitution, but I would like to add one more. I will not give it a higher status than that of a side-bar note. I believe that this process has been extremely transparent. Never before had I been involved in a constitutional negotiating process where so many cellular telephones were used to consult stakeholders and principals. Stakeholders and principals had been engaged throughout. That, I am sure, has led to good constitution-making. I believe it has made to a certain extent, the process a worthwhile one, because when we finally resolve these matters we will have the endorsement of the various participants.

I am not sure that I will have the opportunity on Wednesday to make this particular statement and therefore I will do it right now. It concerns the chairperson, Mr Ramaphosa. It was the wish of the Constitutional Assembly that he should be chairperson and I should be deputy chairperson. It was endorsed by the members. Mr Ramaphosa acted as chairperson, but as the primus inter pares-first among equals. I thank him for that. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUONAL ASSEMBLY: Thank you. Deputy Chairperson. We are now at a point where we can switch off our cellular telephones. As much as they were used during the negotiating process, they are not necessary in this House at this point in time.

We have a list of speakers, but before calling on them, I have to say the following. We are advised that as hon members go through the Bill that is being distributed, they may come across areas where there are some grammatical errors. Those will be corrected through a composite amendment that will be placed before the Constitutional Committee tomorrow and also before the Constitutional Assembly. We therefore ask members, if they come across such errors, to point them out to us so that they can be included in the composite amendment that will be put forward.

Mr M V MOOSA: Mr Chairperson and members of the Constitutional Assembly, it is my honour and privilege to be the first speaker in what will perhaps go down as the most historic and significant debate ever conducted in this Chamber.

This is a debate which is to result in the adoption of the first truly democratic constitution, a constitution which serves as a record of our freedom, which serves to entrench the hard-won freedoms for which all of us have sacrificed so much, a constitution which creates equality and which serves as a tool for the transformation of our country, a tool for building the nation, and a tool which says to all of South Africa and to the world: Never again will we have apartheid. [Applause.]

Historians will no doubt place this particular debate and the record of the debate in Hansard under a great deal of scrutiny so as to understand what we meant by various things. Therefore I would like to state, for the record and for the sake of posterity, that this two-day debate cannot even begin to record the richness of the constitution because we have taken two years to mull over submissions and to have debates in the many theme committees, subcommittees and public discussions-all of which resulted in this. The richness of that flavour will not necessarily emerge in this debate. At best, it will give historians a mere whiff of what was in the minds of the drafters of the constitution.

Starting off with clause I of the constitution, I would like to make a few comments on the topics which you, Mr Chairperson, have singled out for discussion today. Clause 1 is a new and innovative insertion. It records the constitutional fundamentals. For us, clause 1 represents the very ethos of the constitution. In future, whenever we want to know whether we are going against the fundamentals of the ethos of the constitution, we will look at clause1, which, right at the outset, reads as follows:

The Republic of South Africa is one sovereign democratic State founded on the following values:

1. Human dignity . . .

Human dignity is placed above everything else. It then goes on to record fundamentals without which a constitution is really not a constitution. It is for that reason that this clause has been inserted, not only as the first clause of the constitution, but as a clause elevated above all other clauses through the requirement that there should be a 75% majority of the National Assembly if ever these fundamentals are at issue. That is, in my view, an extremely strong statement to make.

The language clause, clause 6, is also a product of much discussion and consultation. The important thing about this particular formulation is that it ensures that, in the words of the clause itself, "all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably." There is no one language more important than another.

This clause for the first time also provides that not only should the official languages be promoted and conditions be created for their development, but also that those indigenous languages that have been trampled upon for so many centuries are now given a similar status. These are the Khoi, Nama and San languages. No longer do they feature in a long list of other South African languages such as German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Tamil, etc.

Apart from Khoi, Nama and San-this I would say is unique anywhere in the world-the constitution not only gives recognition to sign language, but it also demands its promotion and development. [Applause.] This is directly as a result of the lobbying that has been done by disabled people themselves.

I would like to make a comment on Chapter 3, which is a very short chapter. It is less than one and a half page long and deals with co-operative governance. We realise, with the proliferation of government in this country, that one of the biggest gaps we had in the interim Constitution was the fact that we did not have a mechanism to ensure that people co-operated with one another. We found some governments in this country which simply refused to co-operate with other governments.

Therefore we have now entrenched in the constitution clause 41(1)(h) which reads as follows:

All spheres of government and all organs of state within each sphere must co-operate with each other in mutual trust and good faith by . . . assisting and supporting each other; informing each other and consulting on matters of common interest; co-ordinating their actions and legislation with each other; . . . and avoiding legal proceedings against each other.

For the first time we will now have a framework within which we will not only be able to practise co-operative governance, but perhaps compel all organs of state and all governments in all three spheres to co-operate with each other.

Before I sit down, I would like to make some comments on the question of local government. Local government in this country, as in many other countries, has always been treated as a stepchild of the first and second tiers of government. We have attempted, and I think we have by and large succeeded, in removing this second- class status of local government. Local government is now recognised, side-by-side with the national and provincial level, as a tier of government in its own right with the full constitutional protection that provincial governments themselves enjoy.

The constitution grants in clause 151 that a municipality has the right to govern, on its own initiative, the local government affairs of its community. In clause 156 it says further that a municipality has executive authority in respect of, and has the right to administer, the local government matters listed in Schedules 4 and 5.

What we have done now is to remove local government as a mere competence or functional area of another level of government. Local government is a level of government in its own right. It is not a function of provincial or national government as such, just as provincial government is not a function of any other level of government, including national government.

This, for the first time, creates a situation in which we would be able to avoid the one shortcoming that exists in almost every other-I use the term guardedly-federal-type system.

In India, for example, after the creation of a federation there, over a period of decades one found that the states-which are the equivalent of our provinces-simply withdrew all the powers of local government, to the extent that almost 40 years after the adoption of the Indian constitution they had to insert a new chapter dealing with local government.

When a multiparty delegation from this Constitutional Assembly visited Germany in December 1995, a question was put to Chancellor Kohl: If he had the opportunity to amend the German constitution, what was the first thing he would do? He said the first thing he would do would be to insert provisions which guaranteed the powers and functions of local government. We have done that upfront in this constitution. For the first time, as members can see, the powers of local government are now listed in two schedules in the constitution.

More than that, local government will now participate directly in the national legislative process, because the National Council of Provinces will not only have nine delegations from each of the provinces, but will also have one delegation representing local government, so that there will be 10 delegations sitting in the Council of Provinces. Local government will now not be at the mercy of someone else who will be arguing their case; they will be doing so themselves. For the first time local government will also have the power to nominate members of the Financial and Fiscal Commission.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many technical experts who have worked with us and put up with us over the past two years. I would like to express particular thanks to the executive director and the staff of the Constitutional Assembly who, in the most dedicated and competent manner, have conducted the affairs of this Assembly. [Applause.]

I would also like to thank the Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly and his Deputy who have captained this ship through stormy waters in a most able way that has won the admiration of all of us. I would also like to thank the members of the Constitutional Assembly, although I am one of them. I think they have lived up to the mandate they were given. This body of men and women was elected to draft this constitution and what I have seen over the past few weeks and months is an unequalled dedication on the part of this body, slogging literally day and night to fulfil that mandate. I think the hon members ought to applaud themselves. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: The hon member's time has expired.

Mr M V MOOSA: My time has expired, but I would like to thank the public out there without whose guidance, through the tens of thousands of submissions that we have received, this constitution may have contained that much less.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: I call upon the hon member Dr Boy Geldenhuys. [Interjections.]

Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairperson, hon members will not be disappointed. [Laughter.] The previous speaker said: "Never again will we have apartheid." [Applause.] That is also my wish and it is also the wish of my party . . . [Interjections] . . . provided that apartheid will not in future be succeeded by scientific socialism or, for that matter, communism. [Interjections.]

The constitution under discussion is not a de novo phenomenon. It would have been a de novo document if South Africa's history had begun with the ANC. However, South Africa's history did not begin with the ANC. This constitution, although extremely important, must therefore be regarded as just another milestone on South Africa's path to constitutional development. It is neither the beginning nor the end.

For this very reason the NP can associate itself inter alia with the content of the preamble. I will refer briefly to some of the issues touched upon in it. "Honour those who suffered for justice and in our land." We can associate ourselves fully with that. It is not only the ANC freedom fighters who suffered for justice and freedom [Interjections.] The Afrikaners were the very first to take up arms against a colonial power on the African continent. The suffering of so many women and children during the Anglo-Boer War is common knowledge. [Interjections.] However, the Afrikaners forgave unconditionally, without ever instituting a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. [Interjections.]

Tribute should also be paid to those who died whilst preventing the establishment of a Marxist state on the subcontinent of Africa. [Interjections.] It is an injustice and oversimplification to accuse them of having merely defended apartheid. There was much more to it than that. They were engaged inter alia in an effort to stop Soviet expansion in Southern Africa, which was no myth.

It is indeed a tragedy that a legitimate liberation struggle was confused, owing to involvement, with a totally different agenda. [Interjections.] This, in fact, deprived the liberation struggle of its moral high ground. Perhaps the Minister of Justice should take cognisance of this.

The NP appreciates the fact that its amendment was accepted and that the following line was inserted in the original text: "Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country."

Every head of state worth his or her salt who has addressed Parliament so far, has referred to the excellent infrastructure which exists in South Africa today. This did not fall from heaven. It is the result of the combined effort and the sweat and expertise of workers and employers. They should be honoured for this.

A line in the preamble says "… united in on our diversity."

In the preamble the rich diversity of the South African population is recognised, but if recognition is not at the same time afforded to the religious, cultural and linguistic rights of this diversity, one can simply forget about national unity or nation-building.

It is praiseworthy that the preamble also refers to a democratic dispensation as an ideal. But we must be careful in our use of the word "democracy". East Germany was known as the German Democratic Republic while there was no question of a democracy in the true sense of the word.

With guidelines from the United Nations as a yardstick, minority protection becomes a test for a truly democratic model.

The preamble expresses the wish that democratic South Africa as a sovereign state will once again be able to take its rightful place in the family of nations. However, as long as South Africa continues to embrace the polecat nations of the world, this will never happen.

Although the NP would have wanted the preamble to begin with the words "In humble submission to Almighty God, and we therefore also place on record our disappointment that this is not the case, we can live with the words May God protect our people. The NP does not agree with the reproach that it is merely an afterthought at the end of the preamble. It is indeed a prayer which precisely registers the omnipotence of God by implication.

The NP appreciates the fact that recognition is given to God in the preamble, despite the fact that many believers and unbelievers perceive South Africa to be a secular state. The biggest common denominator in South African society is our mutual trust in God Almighty. It is therefore appropriate that this should be reflected in the preamble, which has been described as the valued footprint of a nation.

Someone once said: "Africa is dying." Definitely not, if "Nkosi sikelel' iAfrika" applies. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Could I just say that in debating the chapters we should bear in mind that we are also debating them as a bloc. You can choose whichever chapter you would like to address the House on. In my early announcement I omitted mentioning Chapter I, but I am rather pleased that some of the speakers have already referred to it in their inputs. I would also like to repeat that there are a few errors, some typo- graphical and some grammatical. If you see any errors in the Bill before us, please send us a note. That will be taken up in the composite amendment that will be put before the House tomorrow.

Dr P W A MULDER: Mr Chairperson, I think that in the light of the speakers who have spoken thus far, recent events and what still lies ahead for us. 1996 will certainly, correctly or incorrectly, be known as the "Year of the constitution". Future generations will also judge all of us by the extent to which South Africa's problems are solved by this constitution and the extent to which it will realistically be able to deal with the problems of the future.

The FF had very difficult choices before April 1994. The argument in our ranks revolved around the extent to which Afrikaners would best be able to achieve their political objectives within the new constitutional system or outside of it. In heated internal debates many valid arguments were advanced that greater success would be achieved outside of the constitutional system. One of the arguments was inter alia the success of the ANC outside the system of the day. Our decision was indeed to participate in the system, with, as everyone knows, traumatic consequences for our power base, which believed that we would be able to achieve our objectives through war before 27 April 1994.

This constitution is the result of two years of tough negotiations during which the FF had to prove that it was a better choice to participate and to try to achieve our objectives within the system. The mandate we received from 640 000 voters was to negotiate about territorial self-determination on the one hand and cultural self-determination on the other.

The FF's mission also consists of these two elements, as accepted by our congress after a democratic exercise in all the various provinces, namely territorial self-determination in a volkstaat on the one hand and cultural self-determination in the rest of South Africa on the other, as contained in our congresses. That is the mandate with which we came here and about which we had to negotiate. That was, and still is, our mandate.

What makes negotiation so difficult is that on the one hand parties are expected to make compromises for successful negotiation. On the other hand, each party has a mandate from its party organs and its power base to achieve their objectives. No one who is not part of this process will understand how difficult it is still to achieve success between the pressure and expectations of one's supporters on the one hand and the pressure of the negotiating situation on the other. [Interjections.]

This is even more true for a small party whose standpoints often go against the current popular and so-called politically correct standpoints.[Interjections.] I would dearly like to negotiate from a position of power for a change, because that is something I am not familiar with and I do not know how it feels.

The fact that the FF could achieve certain successes says a lot for the hard work of each member of the party who made a contribution, and I want to thank every one of them. Naturally, we did not succeed in achieving everything that we wanted to, and we are disappointed about that. Therefore there has been criticism from outside, and we still have to account for the extent to which the people outside will accept what we did not achieve here. That is part of the entire negotiating test.

However, the test that must actually be applied, is whether or not our participation brought the Afrikaner closer to his ideals. That should also be the test applied by the people outside. I would like to quote N P van Wyk Louw, where he said in "Dieper Reg" a long time ago:

Ek kom om vir 'n volk te pleit

wat klein naas al die voike staan,

dat hulle naam nie sal verklink en tot die stiltes gans vergaan;

maar dat hulle sterk voor God durf kom

rein is die mens wat suiwer streef

en deur hul reg 'n nageslag

in verre eeue nog kan leef.

Parties such as the CP, the HNP and others which refused to participate in the process, must there- fore answer this same question. What have they done during the past two years to bring the Afrikaner closer to his ideals? This is in fact the test that one must apply. The FF is convinced that the big risks we took have indeed brought us closer to these ideals. In tomorrow's debate other members of the FF will speak specifically about self-determination and what has been achieved in this regard, such as collective rights, amongst others and the manner in which this appears in the constitution.

In the limited time at my disposal I am going to confine my self to the preamble to the constitution. I am a Christian, and I have never been ashamed of that. The point of departure and philosophy of Christianity, as I understand it, attempts to promote tolerance towards everyone. We therefore have religious freedom in this constitution. However, this does not mean that a Christian can compromise on his standpoints. I would like to quote from Luke 9:26:

If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes...

I can also refer to Psalm 33:12, which reads:

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.

I can also quote Martin Luther King who, as part of the entire mission in his life, said: You ought to believe something in life. Believe that thing so fervently that you will stand up for it to the end of your days.

The basis on which the FF was founded consists of seven points, of which the first is that the FF accepts that the Triune God rules the destinies of peoples and nations, and that we as fellow citizens undertake to live to the glory of God. Against this background we proposed an amendment. We would have liked the following to be contained in the preamble to the constitution: " . . . in humble recognition of Almighty God"

That would place South Africa and all of us in a position where a greater power-God Almighty, the Triune God-who is appointed above us, is recognised. We negotiated about this matter seriously and proposed various amendments. We hoped that we would succeed in having it included in the constitution. Our dilemma is that the preamble, as it now stands, creates the impression that people are more important than God, and we are convinced that this cannot succeed. We would like to place on record that we regret that our amendment was not accepted and that we will consequently have to state outside that we lost in this sphere.

We will continue to participate in the debate and highlight our standpoints. We want to express the hope that this constitution will give South Africa a peaceful future and that we will be able to solve all the problems-also the harsh realities of Africa. As Afrikaners we are after all bound to Africa. We are committed to searching for solutions here, because there is no other way in which to solve our problems. Our modus operandi is pure, whether we will take the shortcut by continuing with negotiations and viewing this constitution merely as a first hurdle, or whether we will be forced to take a longer road at a later stage-something which will be to no one's benefit.

Mr C G NIEHAUS : Mr Chairperson and hon members of the Constitutional Assembly, it is with pride that I stand in front of you as a Christian South African to speak on this constitution, and specifically on the preamble, particularly because this preamble is the product of long negotiations. It is the product of negotiations into which the ANC went with one aim, and that was to express what stands in the first sentence:

We, the people of South Africa,

Recognise the injustices of our past;

Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land . . .

If we say that this constitution must indeed be representative of everyone, then the ANC could not go into negotiations about the preamble simply with the aim of allowing what we wanted to prevail. Indeed, through all the long negotiations the ANC was prepared to negotiate, not only on what we placed on the table, but also taking into consideration what the views of all the other political parties were. The result that we have is a preamble which, in the first instance, recognises that we are a country of a diversity of peoples and of religions and also a country where there are people who are nonbelievers.

The ANC was prepared to try to find ways to accommodate the positions that have been stated by other political parties. However, we were not prepared to accommodate them in such a way that any person in this country, of whatever belief or persuasion, would be disregarded by this constitution or be trampled on, and be made a second- class citizen.

I am glad to say that the constitution as it stands, and specifically this preamble, meets exactly that demand. However, it is sad when we are faced with speeches such as we heard this afternoon, specifically the speech made by Dr Boy Geldenhuys, trying to justify many of the things that happened in the past. Truly, if we say that we wanted the preamble to this constitution to start: "In humble submission to Almighty God", we must ask ourselves what happened in South Africa for 48 years under constitutions of which the preamble read: "In humble submission to Almighty God". [Interjections.] Was it in humble submission to Almighty God that people were trampled on, that people lost their land, that District Six is still sitting there as a wound in Cape Town? Was it in humble submission to Almighty God that we must today hear the evidence given at the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

What happened to Griffiths Mxenge, what happened to Solomon Mahlangu, what happened to all of them? If what was done to them was done in the name of Almighty God, then it was indeed treacherous to God.

Then that was indeed heresy, and we cannot allow heresy of any kind to prevail in South Africa.

If we take another look at the constitution, we see that it says we should build and work towards making this country a place of justice in order to ensure freedom and justice and democracy for all. It is indeed sad that we are still here this afternoon to debate the constitution, uncertain whether it will finally be approved by a two-thirds majority.

Is this because the NP finds it so difficult to find real solutions to the lockout clause, because they really find it so difficult to find solutions to the problem of education and their case in favour of single-medium education, or does this in fact concern the perpetuation and preservation of apartheid in a new guise?

I think these are the questions that we should ask, because this is the challenge which the preamble to this constitution presents to all of us. This preamble expects of the NP, as of all parties, to tackle its task in a real spirit of reconciliation and co-operation and justice. This in fact means that one should admit what one has done wrong in the past.

I believe that the great challenge to South Africa will in fact be whether we can succeed in the application of this constitution, or succeed in not only getting people to admit that apartheid was wrong, but also their being prepared to see how deeply apartheid has hurt people.

Then, as Dr Geldenhuys as a former clergyman ought to know, one should also know, confession means one should do something in order to rectify the sins of the past. I am afraid that, in view of what the NP is now doing, we cannot be certain of having their full support in this as yet.

I want to conclude by quoting an example from my own life. I do this in reaction to the kind of attack that was made here on members of the SACP. I want to tell the Assembly about a man called Dennis Goldberg, whom I met in prison. When I went to prison, he had already been there for 21 years. He received me, supported and helped me.

During the time that I was there I came across warders who went to church every Sunday, or sat in churches where Dr Geldenhuys preached and unfortunately proclaimed apartheid, who some- times cursed me and shouted at me. One day Dennis Goldberg came to me and asked me why I had turned against apartheid. I told him that I believed apartheid was not Christian. He then took me by the shoulders and said: "Carl, do not allow these people to rob you of your faith." That is what a Communist said.

I want to say in the presence of everyone here that I would much rather associate with people who have devoted their lives to the struggle against apartheid-people who have kept the preamble of the constitution in mind and pledged their full support-than with people who still want to take apartheid into the new South Africa in some or other guise.

I associate myself with people such as Dennis Goldberg and a man who played a great role in the new South Africa, and to whom we paid tribute during this past weekend, Joe Slovo. I thank all my comrades, those who are religious and also those who do not belong to any specific religious group, for their struggle in order to unite us here today. I thank them that we can have this constitution, and that we can say together to one another: "God bless South Africa!" Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika! [Applause.]

Mr C W EGLIN: Mr Chairperson, I have no intention of trying to compete with the theologians. I want to get back to the constitution as I see it. [Laughter.]

This South African constitution, like so many constitutions, is structured in two parts. There are a number of chapters which deal with the structures and procedures for creating good democratic government. The other part creates structures and procedures as a protection against bad or authoritarian government.

This afternoon we are actually considering the first part. Chapters 1 and 3 to 7 deal with governance. They deal with how one creates good government. Tomorrow we will deal with those matters which deal with protection against bad government. Let me say with regard to the overall structure for creating governance, while we would have reservations about matters of detail, we believe this constitution has gone a long way towards ensuring that South Africans of the future will enjoy governance that is representative, democratic, transparent and accountable. These will be the features, we think, of the structures that we are trying to create.

I want to respond to some of the chapters and provisions to identify the DP's attitude. First of all, section 1 of the founding provisions, as Deputy Minister Valli Moosa indicated, is absolutely fundamental. Section 1 lies at the very heart of our constitution. It encapsulates the philosophy of the constitution. It puts in place the keystones of the constitutional structures and it provides very important reinforcements to the principles that follow. I would hope that we shall all look at section I and engrave it in our hearts, so that we as legislators around the country, whenever we are in doubt as to how we understand this constitution of South Africa, can go right back to section I for the founding provisions of our constitution.

The second unique feature of this constitution is the section in Chapter 3 which deals with co- operative government. I have not seen the concept of co-operative government stated in this form in any other constitution in the world. It is unique and it is necessary, because the concept of co-operative government embodies the separation of government into three defined, constitutionalised spheres, namely national, provincial and local. Having separated those spheres, the question is how one may bring them together in the concept of co-operative government.

This constitution contains both a separation of the instruments of government into their different spheres and the concepts of co-operation, respect and mutual trust between those three spheres.

People might say that it detracts from the autonomy of local government, of provincial government and of national government. It does all that, but we believe that it replaces that autonomy with respect, which is essential, and co-operation, which is even more essential.

I now come to the question of Parliament. In terms of Chapter 4, it is a normal, democratic parliament consisting of two Houses, the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. We would have preferred other provisions in respect of the National Assembly. We would have preferred a smaller National Assembly, as we would have preferred a smaller Cabinet. We think the numbers should have been restricted to 300 and 20 respectively. We would also, in the next election, have liked to see the constituency component of the election brought back. Then, as members, we would all be directly accountable to our constituents, and our constituents could have a lien directly on us and have direct access to us.

However, there are important features and changes in this particular chapter. First of all, the powers of Parliament, in relation to the national executive, have been strengthened. Parliament will be a stronger body in relation to the national executive. The national executive, from the President down to all the Ministers, is going to be accountable to this Parliament and to the committees of this Parliament. Nobody other than this Parliament will be able to dissolve this Parliament. No one, whether a President, Prime Minister or other potentates will be able to decree that Parliament should be dissolved. The dissolution of Parliament is in the hands only of this Parliament, and is a democratic decision of this Parliament

For the first time, Parliament, and not only the executive, is entitled to initiate and prepare legislation. Parliament itself will be able to introduce legislation, not just through private members' motions, but through the various committees of Parliament. While the executive can introduce legislation, Parliament will be a master in its own house and can also introduce legislation.

There is to be a special committee of Parliament to keep the constitution under constant review. It is not going to be the executive which will say when it is time that the constitution is changed. A special, permanent committee of Parliament will be set up constantly to review the constitution to ensure that it is adjusted in terms of the needs and requirements of the time.

However, what is more important in respect of the changes to Parliament is the question of access to Parliament. It is not just a question of access to the gallery or through television. The provisions of this constitution require that Parliament, in terms of our standing orders, give access to the public, not merely as observers, but as participants in the legislative process through the committees of Parliament. This is a distinct improvement on what we have had before in our Constitution.

The second House of Parliament, as we all know, is a novel institution which will be known as the National Council of Provinces. One can talk about the detail later. However, I have no doubt that despite all the problems there are going to be in structuring that body, it is going to strengthen the role, the position and the stature of the provinces in relation not only to the process of government in this House, but to what I would call the process of politics in South Africa. I believe that provincialism and local government are going to become important elements of politics, and not only important elements of Parliament, in South Africa.

As far as the President and the national executive is concerned, the constitution once again emphasises, without detracting from the status of the role of the President, the collegial responsibility of the President and his Cabinet, in administering the national executive of our country. We are less impressed by the concept that the President can choose two people who are not members of Parliament to become Cabinet Ministers. This is a fundamental departure from the concept of parliamentary accountability and responsibility. It also means that those individuals will not be accountable to the public through the political parties that normally nominate them. In a country like ours, accountability through political parties is a very important brake on the authority of the executive. We would have preferred all Cabinet Ministers to come from amongst the members of Parliament.

As far as the provinces are concerned, we would have preferred more exclusive powers for the provinces than they have at the moment. How- ever, I will leave that issue, because my other colleagues are going to deal with it in due course.

We believe, however, that the fact that the three tiers of government-provincial, local and national government-now have a clearly defined constitutional position is going to revolutionise the nature of our politics in South Africa.

Mr P A C HENDRICKSE: Mr Chairperson, I am today very honoured and privileged to be participating in this, the most important debate in our country. I have had the privilege and honour, since 29 November 1991, to have been part of the Codesa and Kempton Park processes. This debate is very important, because it will lead to the adoption of a constitution which for the first time recognises all of us as citizens of our country. This constitution was written with the participation of the people and will be voted for by elected representatives of all the people of South Africa .

It is therefore appropriate that we acknowledge those who, over the years, contributed to this moment, many of whom paid the ultimate price. We need to remember not only those who are known to all of us, but also the thousands of unknown men, women and young people who all made sacrifices in the pursuit of the dream that one day we would be free. We need too to acknowledge the pain and suffering of their families and loved ones. Many made sacrifices in various ways and degrees to bring us to where we are today.

The preamble to our constitution acknowledges our past and encapsulates our ideals for the future. This debate should be a happy one, a debate that celebrates the commitment of our people to democracy, human dignity, the achievement of equality, the advancement of human rights and dignity, and nonracialism and nonsexism.

What a pity it is that today there are some parties that do not feel that they can celebrate with us. One would have expected the NP in particular, being conscious of their past, their history of oppression of the people, and their perpetuation of a crime against humanity, to have seized this opportunity as a means of apologising to the country for their evil policies, as a way of showing that they have renounced their past, mended their ways and committed themselves to the new South Africa. One would have expected the NP and its members to show some sign of humility, and not the arrogance of one who has not done anything wrong, evil, immoral or shameful.

However, this may be part of the problem. We tend to think that the NP also sees apartheid as immoral and iniquitous. We forget that there are those amongst them who believe only that apartheid was wrongly applied, or was not practically feasible, and therefore that they needed to opt for some sort of change. We forget that what we have today is not necessarily what they had in mind when they decided to negotiate as a result of the pressures on them. Dr Boy Geldenhuys did not disappoint us today when he came with his typical knee-jerk response. This is the same Dr Geldenhuys who, with his commitment to the so-called Christian values, supported apartheid through its darkest years

It is at times like these that the true colours of the NP come out. We see in their caucus and in their party structures the debate between those who still want to serve the interests of a narrow, racially defined minority and the perpetuation of immorally accrued privileges and those few amongst them who believe that the NP needs to reach out to people across the colour line and to act in the interests of the people and the country as a whole. It is at times like these that we see the control exercised by the ultraconservatives in the NP.

I want to take this opportunity to appeal to all parties in this Assembly to support this constitution. All the parties here have been part of the negotiating process, and will therefore know of the compromises the ANC has made in the interests of the country and for the sake of inclusivity

The ANC has gone out of its way to accommodate other parties. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of South Africans voted for the ANC an- its principles, programme and goals. This is matter which is conveniently overlooked by smaller parties and negated as not being o relevance. We say that we believe in a democracy but when the majority of the people democratically support a certain party, the parties who fail to get 2% or 5% support say that that is not important; they have the answers. When people talk of the support for the ANC, there are people in the NP, like Minister Dawie de Villiers, who say that it is because of the political immaturity of Black people that the ANC has so much support. When we become more mature, the support base will be different.

There is the tiny DP, which could not even convince 2% of the people to support it, acting as if its members alone know what is right for the country.

Mr K M ANDREW: What about the Labour Party?

Mr P AC HENDRICKSE: You got less than 2%, Ken.

The DP only needs to look at the popularity of its leader, Tony Leon, in Rapport, a newspaper which makes fun of the pain, suffering and tears of people when they testify before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. These people suffered under apartheid. Those members should ask themselves why Rapport is so enamoured with their leader. Are they still faithful to their founding principles?

In the past we have had preambles-this has been stated-to constitutions which started, "In humble submission to Almighty God". They referred to the upholding of Christian values and civilised standards. All of us know what was perpetrated in the name and in the guise of civilised standards and Christian values. I appeal to all panics to accept this preamble, which cannot be considered to be contrary to the beliefs of anyone present. Although people may have wanted more, let us take this preamble to our hearts and commit ourselves and our people to the continued realisation of our goals so that South Africa can truly belong to all our people, united in diversity. [Applause.]

Mrs P DE LILLE: Mr Chairperson, I want to start by referring to the process, which, I must say, was tiring and exhausting. However, we have finally produced a constitution which will enjoy legitimacy and the support of the majority of the people of this country. It was therefore worth every minute of work. [Applause.]

I also have the permission of the chairperson of the subcommittee which dealt with the preamble, Comrade Blade Nzimande, to restate my position here today. The fourth line of the preamble reads:

. . . South Africa belongs to all who live in it

We still have problems with that statement. With due respect to the Freedom Charter, as I have said previously, I think we need to qualify that statement by saying that South Africa belongs to its citizens. [Interjections.] Azania belongs to its citizens. [Laughter.] Yes.

In Chapter 1, under the founding provisions, a new vision for this country is encapsulated, a vision which all of us fought for and which will finally allow South Africa to become one united Azania. [Interjections.]

Chapter 3, on co-operative government, is commendable, especially the principles in clause 41(1)(c) and (d), staling that all spheres of government and all organs of state must

3. implement effective, transparent, accountable and coherent government for the Republic as a whole;
4. be loyal to the Constitution, the Republic, and its people .. .

Chapter 4 deals with Parliament. It is unfortunate that we could finally decide on the seat of Parliament, and that that will now be decided by an Act of Parliament. We must remove the uncertainty in the nation as to where Parliament will finally be seated. We had hoped that we would decide that Parliament would be in Cape Town. [Interjections.]

Clause 46(1) states that the National Assembly should consist of no fewer than 350 and no more than 400 members. The PAC proposed 350 members and we are happy that this has been accepted. Clause 60 deals with the National Council of Provinces. We feel that the new council of provinces will be more representative and accountable to provinces and will assist in achieving national consensus on important issues.

Chapter 5 deals with the President and the national executive. It provides far more clarity on the powers and functions of the President and the national executive. This being the case, the PAC has no major problems with this chapter.

Chapter 6 refers to provinces. Clause 142 deals with the adoption of provincial constitutions. The PAC is of the view that we should only have one national constitution, and not have constitutions all over in the provinces, which could lead to further divisions in our nation.

Chapter 7 refers to local government. The PAC welcomes the local government matters referred to in Schedule 4(b) and Schedule 5 which have been assigned to municipalities and which they will now also have the executive authority to administer.

Mr M BHABHA: Mr Chairperson, from the point of view of local government, we stand on the threshold of a most exciting era.

Clause 151 and clause 155, read together with Part B of Schedules 4 and 5, usher in an era that is fresh and entirely new, a system that is perhaps unprecedented in the constitutions of the world. In effect, no other sphere of government can ever attempt to usurp the powers of local government in performing its functions. This tier is no longer a subservient one to the other tiers of government. Local government now derives its powers from the constitution itself. These powers are mentioned in Part B of Schedules 4 and 5. Municipalities will now have the autonomy to administer their powers within the parameters of the functions mentioned in these schedules. Local government will no longer be vulnerable to either provincial government or national government.

No longer can provincial government or national government interfere with the operations of municipalities.

The provisions of Chapter 7 epitomise a particular paradigm shift in the way local government is now viewed. This chapter now allows local government to play a key role in the context of co-operative governance. It is now not only an arena for service delivery, but an arena for development.

Mr Chairperson, I must report to you on one stark political difference that we did have with the NP. The NP insisted upon ratepayers or landowners having an extra vote in addition to their residential vote. In effect, that would have meant that those very wealthy people who own homes in Hermanus-and I am told that there are quite a few of us sitting here who do so-and visit them once every one or two years, would also have a vote in Hermanus. Now we oppose this most vehemently.

An HON MEMBER: Why do you not have a home in Hermanus?

Mr M BHABHA: Because I did not have your privileges. We oppose this most vehemently, because what we would be doing once again would be to reward the rich, the privileged and those who had access to land in the past. Again, we would be punishing the poor. I am glad to announce that at some stage the NP did come to its senses. At least we succeeded in something. Now there will only be one vote, and that will be a residential vote.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly for doing a sterling job in a monumental task.

Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, before I start I would like to tell you that nine years ago today I and a few of my colleagues became members of Parliament. I want to take the opportunity, on the one hand, to congratulate them, and on the other to inform you that when we joined Parliament the NP was involved with an internal and in-depth investigation into the political morality, if any, of the policy of withholding political rights from blacks at the time.

I would subsequently like to react to what the hon member Mr Carl Niehaus said about the Christianity and morality of the NP. Since I have come here, and during the past nine years, I have experienced the NP as a party which has discussed this matter of political rights intensely and in depth in the caucus, passages, offices and recreation rooms. I take exception to what he said, but fortunately I take it whence it comes. When it comes to such a superior issue as the understanding of God, I look at the person who is levelling accusations against the motives of the NP. I really take exception to the contemptuous and derogatory reference that Mr Niehaus made about regarding the motives of the NP in this regard. However, I am grateful to be able to say that one day, when it is time for the Judgement, I would rather fill my own shoes than those of someone else. And I say this without mentioning any names. [Interjections.]

I would like to get back to Chapter 1. As Mr Colin Eglin quite correctly indicated, this is a very important chapter. In the very first chapter of the Bill the spirit of the constitution is stated unambiguously, namely that the State is based on the values of human dignity, human equality, human rights and human freedoms.

Everything that follows in the constitution is particularly aimed at achieving exactly this kind of society, in other words a society of which these values are the very foundation. These values are entrenched in the constitution and, in particular, in the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, it is clearly stated that the constitution is the supreme law of the country and that the law shall rule. The constitution is there to protect everybody, not only the majority. It is particularly there to protect the minority, individuals, against excessive State power. In this protection these core values must prevail.

This first chapter further deals with three emotional issues, namely the National Anthem, the National Flag and languages. Regarding the anthem, the Bill provides that the President can determine this by proclamation. Before a final decision on this, the President must consider how an anthem can serve to achieve national unity. I understand that the President intends to give an indication concerning the anthem soon, and we would like to request him to take the opportunity to make an announcement in this regard.

On the flag issue, there was an agreement that the present flag should remain as it is. This is a new flag which, in the short time since it has been used, has been very broadly accepted. It is our submission that a new anthem, or a combination of the existing two anthems, could, like the flag, serve to promote unity in South Africa.

As far as language is concerned, I want to say the following. The Senate subcommittee on language of the Select Committee on Education, Sport, Recreation, Art, Culture, Science and Technology describes the importance of language as follows, and I quote:

Language is a form of human communication. It is an instrument to convey meaning. Mother tongue could virtually be considered one's second skin. It is the natural possession of every normal person, as we use language to express our thoughts, norms and values, to explore our experience and customs and to form our society and the laws ruling it. It is by way of language that we convey our hopes and ideals.

By way of the language clause in the Bill the strong tendency towards unilinguility that has existed since 1994 has changed. Unilinguility marginalises and deprives those who do not speak the dominant language of power. By way of this clause the Bill is brought into line with the international move in the direction of multilinguility as a basic principle in a democratic state. Multilinguility is an essential characteristic of the modern world. The language clause there- fore reacts positively to the diversity of languages in South Africa.

I would now like to try something. I think that those who speak Sesotho will forgive me if I do so very badly. With apologies to Senator Direko for my attempt, I ask them to listen to me patiently.

Ke thabile ha e mong le e mong wa rona a tseba ho bina, ho ithoka le ho sebetsa ka puo ya hae, fatsheng lena la rona le letle la South Africa. Ha re tshwaraneng ka matsoho re ye pele. [Mahofi.] (Translation of Sotho paragraph follows.)

[I am happy that each one of us can sing, work and sing praises in his own language in our beautiful country. South Africa. Let us join hands and move forward. [Applause.]]

Ms M VERWOERD: Mr Chairperson, this Bill before us today is yet another very important landmark in the dynamic, although often very difficult, transitional process that we have been going through in South Africa. It is the culmination of a process that stretches back over many centuries, a process which saw many people dying in the hope of seeing freedom as embodied I this constitution today.

In the continuing challenge of transformation on the economic, social and political level, it is well known that local government can and must play an integral part. It is this challenge that is addressed in Chapter 7 of the constitution.

The apartheid value system manifested itself deeply at local government level. Already in 1922 Col Stallard formalised separate urban residences and denied municipal franchise to Africans. This segregation was, of course, formalised by the NP government who, over decades, systematically divided local communities along racial lines in every aspect of life. Privileges and money were to a large extent in the hands of the White sector of society.

However, as resistance to apartheid grew on the national and international front, so did the opposition at local level. As a result of this, the Local Government Negotiating Forum was formed in 1993 and its recommendations were to play an integral part in the later multiparty negotiations and the interim Constitution.

It can be said that in the past local government was completely subject to other tiers of government, and only had those powers that were delegated to it by another tier of government. Despite a shift away from this in the interim Constitution, the fact that local government was still listed as a Schedule 6 function caused endless problems. Although local government was listed as a concurrent power, it was still made a function of other levels of government, thus, once again, making it the stepchild of government.

It is against this background that Chapter 7 was written. In this new constitution, local government, as my colleague before me stated, is clearly defined as a separate, although not independent, level of government. It is stated clearly in clause 151 that a municipality does not only have the right to govern local government affairs on its own initiative, but that national and provincial legislation may not impede a municipality's rights or abilities to exercise its powers and perform its functions.

These powers and functions are derived from Schedules 4 and 5 where the local government functions such as water, sanitation, cleansing, refuse removal and electricity reticulation, are listed as Part B of the schedules. Clause 156 gives municipalities the right to administer these functions as listed, as well as any local government matter assigned to it. It further gives municipalities the right to make bylaws in respect of these spheres, subject to national and provincial legislation.

However, certain obligations and developmental duties are conferred on local government, thus giving content to the concept of local government being the hands and feet of the RDP. Clauses 152 and 153 compel local government to structure its budget and planning processes in such a way as to give priority to basic needs in the community, and also to promote the development of that community.

They further place an obligation on municipalities to participate in national and provincial develop- mental programmes. In most of these issues, all the parties were mainly in agreement. However, when it came to the election procedures for municipalities and to demarcation, substantive and serious differences started emerging. Al- though it was agreed that demarcation should be done by an independent body, the NP insisted that cultural diversity should be placed in the constitution as a criterion for ward demarcation. At times one could forgive the negotiators for wondering whether they were negotiating with the old CP instead of the new NP.

They further persisted, as my colleague has stated, in arguing for the property vote, saying that businesses and holidaymakers should have more than one vote owing to the fact that they were paying rates. Although this might sound very rational, it would have put us back into the situation in which the previously advantaged in our society would have more votes than the disadvantaged, and those who could not, for historical reasons, obtain wealth would once again be penalised.

It must be said that it is shocking that the NP, in this day and age, still so blatantly wants to entrench White privilege, through both demarcation and the selected extra vote.

It is true that South Africa is experiencing a miracle, but it is a phased miracle. During the inauguration of our President, the rainbow nation was launched, while the Rugby World Cup, and the President in his rugby jersey, gave some practical content to reconciliation.

The way in which consensus will hopefully b reached in this Constitutional Assembly will consolidate all of this. It is, however, important for all these factors also to find expression at local level, because the success with which we will be able to transform the policy, bureaucracy an delivery infrastructure will determine whether we will be making a meaningful change to the lives of people in this country. It is only once we can truly claim that we have given a better life to all, that the South African miracle will at last be completed. [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN: Mr Chairperson and ho members, when we compare the present constitution with that of the previous dispensation, the ACDP recognises that this constitution is substantially more democratic, more transparent an more inclusive than any other constitution w have ever had, but admitting this does not mean that every aspect of the constitution is acceptable to us as it stands.

I would now like to turn to the preamble and make a few brief comments. We believe that the preamble should explicitly recognise the sovereignty of Almighty God over South Africa. Th fact that the previous government had, in its preamble, "In humble submission to Almighty God", but did not submit to His sovereignty and His law, does not mean that we must discard the principle of submission to Almighty God.

As Christians we do not discard the Bible because certain persons who profess to be Christians have broken God's law. It is precisely because we are sinners, saved by grace, that we need the word of God to remind us daily of our shortcomings. It is precisely for this reason that we strongly support the preamble beginning with the words "In humble submission to Almighty God".

The ACDP has already compromised on this position, because we initially asked for the inclusion of "In humble submission to the Al mighty Triune God". But because we accepted the fact that this would not include the Muslim Jewish and other religious communities who believe in Almighty God, we accepted the more inclusive phrase which would include more than 80% of the people of our country.

We cannot water down the preamble to such an extent that we ultimately undermine the word o God. The sovereign rule of Almighty God must, at the very least, be acknowledged if we are to enjoy the Lord's blessings and protection, as requested in the present preamble.

Government is said to be based on the will of the people, and we accept this. The intent of this statement is good in that it highlights the need for governments to be accountable to the electorate, and that is excellent, but alone it could be misinterpreted to read that governments are accountable to the people only. The authority of the State originates with God. In Romans 13:1 the Bible says: "There is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

The people are to choose their own leaders. In Deuteronomy 1:13 it is said: "Choose some wise, understanding and respected men from each of your tribes, and I will set them over you." So God recognises governments. He recognises the authority that governments have over us. However, the governments' authority is derived from God, and that we must admit. Governments are ac- countable primarily to God as their source of authority. It is on issues where God has not given commands in the Bible that we, the people, and the will of the people, become the guide and the decision-making process or the democratic process takes over.

The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights, for example, is to entrench God's written instructions for human government so that they cannot be easily altered to conform to the fluctuating will of the people or the changing political leadership. The reference to South Africa as a sovereign state is accurate in that the country is free from domination by a foreign power, and we accept that. It must, however, like all other nations, be subject to the sovereign rule of God. The term "sovereign state" was deliberately omitted from the American Declaration of Independence and the constitution for this reason.

In conclusion, it is therefore suggested that this should be qualified by statements which recognise God's authority over the constitution and South Africa as a nation. It is important that the preamble, as a statement of intent by the writers of the constitution, and that includes all of us, should reflect the Christian consensus in South Africa. This would not inhibit individual religious freedom but would affirm the obligation on the State to uphold moral principles rather than secular value systems.

Mr J A RABIE: Mr Chairman, in general I can express my satisfaction with what was negotiated in Chapter 4, "Parliament", Chapter 5, "The President and National Executive" and Chapter 6, "Provinces". Allow me a moment to highlight a few clauses and subsections regarding the National Assembly. I shall discuss the others tomorrow.

Clause 46 provides for a voting system based on proportional representation and a voters' roll. Clause 46(l)(c) provides for a voting age of 18 years. I appreciate the fact that the ANC has accepted the voting qualification without let or hindrance.

It is a pity that we were unable to provide for a free mandate in the transition. However, there is agreement that this will be dealt with as soon as possible during the transition. I am perplexed that the ANC, which boasts about its size and numbers, is so afraid to allow or accept a free mandate.

We have virtually reached consensus that after the elections geographical areas are to be allocated statutorily to members so as to bring the representatives and the electorate closer together. Ordinary legislation is needed for this.

It was important to the NP that a joint committee should be created to review the constitution on a regular basis. This is now being provided for in the constitution, which will to a large extent contribute to the elimination of ad hoc amendments to the constitution.

Financial and administrative help for parties within the National Assembly is now a corner- stone of the constitution. This has been done mainly so that all parties can participate effectively in the democracy.

Recognition is now also given to the Leader of the Opposition. In other words, the Leader of the Largest Minority Party becomes the Leader of the Official Opposition. There is also a measure to fund the parties' activities outside of Parliament, which is widely welcomed. A similar measure should also apply to the provinces in this regard.

Originally there was no reference to the seat of Parliament and the ANC did not want to have this included in the constitution. The NP wished to maintain the status quo, which could only be amended by a two-thirds majority. The seat is now in Cape Town, which can be changed by an Act of Parliament based on a normal majority. There are people who now want to use this as an electoral ploy, but the parties are still going to get an opportunity to bargain about this matter in the portfolio committee, so that whatever they may want with regard to this matter will be contained in it.

On the other hand, it was a breakthrough that the institutional measures could be amended. Provision was also made for a 75% majority with regard to clause I of the constitution. I listened to Mr Valli Moosa when he boasted about that clause in the constitution, but once again I was perplexed that they would not have it amended by a 75% majority. But they backed down in this regard.

Another central point which the NP wanted included in the constitution deals with the referral of an Act to the Constitutional Court. Clause 80(4) in particular has been settled to our satisfaction. It now reads:

If an application is unsuccessful, the Constitutional Court may order the applicants to pay costs if the application did not have a reason- able prospect of success.

By and large this chapter on Parliament therefore contains all of the measures the NP has campaigned for and we can live with it.

Dr E G PAHAD: Mr Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, perhaps I should start by apologising to Mr Boy Geldenhuys. I apologise to him because the communists have confused him so much that he never knows what he is talking about. [Laughter.]

I would like to start my speech by dealing with some of the sections in the constitution which relate to the National Assembly and the national executive. Mr Rabie, who spoke just before me, touched on some of those issues.

I think that we should state quite clearly, for the benefit of Colin Eglin, what the constitution does not do. It does not prescribe that at some future time a constituency element may not be introduced into the system. It certainly does provide for that. What is important, I think, is that the next election will be held on the same basis as the one which was held in April 1994. Therefore in Annexure A of the constitution we have reintroduced in a different way section 43(b) of the interim Constitution.

Now, of course, if Mr Rabie were interested in telling the truth, instead of pontificating about people being afraid of a free mandate, he would then have had to accept that one could only take this electoral system in its totality, and its totality; as far as the interim Constitution is concerned, had to do with the question of the vacation of his seat in Parliament. It is not a question of a free mandate. Anybody who wishes to cross the floor may do so. It then becomes the responsibility of the receiving party to make place for that person, because our position was that the proportionality principle should not be affected by the crossing of the floor.

Let me also say that an Act of Parliament ma within a reasonable period of time amend this provision, and provisions have been made to try cater for the question of mergers of politic parties or subdivisions of political parties that, may occur. Of course, the reason I was resisting this matter of the subdivision was that I was in good mood and I wanted to protect the NP from killing each other, but since they are hell-bent on dividing themselves within the next two years think we should welcome them doing so.

The next question concerns clause 57, which N Rabie dealt with. The question here is that up to now, we have not constitutionalised the question of financial and administrative assistance to eat political party represented in the Assembly. Th is now in the constitution, as well as the fact that the Leader of the Largest Minority party will be regarded as the Leader of the Opposition. We think this is a good thing.

Secondly, we now have, for the first time, in the constitution a stipulation to the effect that "to enhance multiparty democracy, national legislation must provide for the funding of political parties participating in national or provincial legislatures on an equitable and proportional basis". I think that is very correct.

Mr Rabie also talked about the seat of Parliament I presume he was criticising the DP, but the NP were also playing political football with this question. The reason they are playing politic football is that they are afraid because there is Cape metropolitan election taking place and the DP might steal some White votes. That is all they are worried about, the White votes.

For this reason we should say something about the seat of Parliament in Cape Town. I must say this Assembly here that very foolishly the NP kept on insisting that this should be decided by two thirds. We had to remind them that if it was by two thirds, we could amend the constitution, which also requires two thirds. Eventually, after a lot of hard bargaining, they did see sense and came to the position that we could change it by a majority of the members of Parliament. I must congratulate them on sometimes having sense.

I also agree with Mr Eglin with regard to the old powers of the National Assembly. For the first time we are constitutionalising the whole question of the powers of the National Assembly and its committees. Up till now these powers basically related to roles and orders. Relative to that is the fact that the national executive is quite clearly accountable to the National Assembly, and this is a very important point. It means that members of Parliament have to work even harder to ensure that they stay on top of all the developments so that they can truly make the national executive accountable to the National Assembly and to the other House of Parliament.

Let me say the following on the national executive. The ANC made it very clear, at Kempton Park already, that we would agree to a Government of National Unity only up to 1999. The NP tried its damnedest to have this extended and we refused. Eventually they had to agree that from 1999 majority rule shall be in place and the majority party shall be the ANC. [Interjections.]

The NP and some other parties then tried to raise the issue of a council of state, and then wanted the President to consult leaders of minority political parties on important State issues. I kept on wondering what was the matter with them. We agreed in the founding provisions that we were going to have a multiparty political system. A multiparty political system requires an opposition party. Now they want the President to go and consult their leader. If their leader agrees with the President they cannot oppose us. What kind of opposition party do they want to be?

If they want to be an opposition party they must be a genuine opposition party. They must not seek favours, they must not seek unnecessary consultation procedures and they must oppose us on the basis of their policies and their programmes. Then we will see who is "bang" of the people of this country. It is not us.

An HON MEMBER: We have seen it in the marketplace.

Dr E G PAHAD: Yes, of course. I am an Indian; I know how to make money. If that hon member comes to me I will teach him. [Laughter.] As a good communist, too, I will teach him how to make money. Let me tell the senator that if he read Karl Marx properly he would become a good capitalist.

Let me just end by saying one more thing about some of the issues that were hotly debated. During the course of the negotiations on this constitution we had some very heated, very intensive debates. We started, in many respects, from very different points of view. Our own perceptions and under- standing, as political parties, in regard to the political system, even its conceptualisation, were very different.

But I am very happy to report to this Constitutional Assembly that in so far as the chapters on Parliament and the executive are concerned, we now have full agreement. I think it is very important for us to realise that on two of the fundamental chapters of this particular constitution we now have full agreement. It is my hope-and this is directed at Mr Colin Eglin- that even at this late hour the DP will see sense, will support this constitution tomorrow and will vote for it. [Applause.]

Debate interrupted.

The meeting adjourned at 17:52

Members assembled in the Chamber of the National Assembly at 10:07.

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

NEW MEMBER (Announcement)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Before dealing with the first item on the agenda, I have the following announcement to make. A vacancy in the National Assembly owing to the resignation of Dr R A M Saloojee has been filled in terms of section 44(2) of the Constitution by the nomination of Ms Maunye with effect from 6 May 1996. The new member was sworn in this morning.

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA BILL (Second Reading debate resumed)

Mr S M MALEBO: Mr Chairperson, some of the most courageous battles of our liberation struggle were fought in the streets of our townships over bread-and-butter issues, issues which were the direct responsibility of local government. How- ever, because the apartheid local government system was not only a tool of central government, but the football of both central and provincial government, local government became an oppressor's tool and only then a provider of the people.

It was because of the courageous stand taken by, among others, the Committee of Ten in Soweto, Pebco in Port Elizabeth, the Mangaung Residents' Association in Mangaung and also lately Sanco, that our perspective of local government was changed. Local government was constitutionally entrenched as a tier of government which derived its powers and functions from the constitution.

Owing to the battles in respect of high rentals, homelessness, and municipalities' lack of capacity to render services, infrastructure, water and housing we became convinced that local government objectives must be not only service orientated, but also developmental. Hence, we say that local government is the delivery point of the RDP. Today this is the position in our constitution, because according to clause 152, the objectives of local government are developmental.

In this constitution local government relations with other levels of government are clearly defined within the constitutional principles of co-operative government. The status, powers and functions of local government are protected from any interference by either the National Assembly or the provincial legislature. This constitution goes further in giving recognition to organised local government representation at national level. This will ensure the participation of local government in the structured National Council of Provinces on matters that affect local government directly.

Representation is also ensured for local government on the Financial and Fiscal Commission. The ANC ensured not only that we are giving constitutional entrenchment to all aspects of local government, but also that local government's share in the revenue collected nationally is entrenched.

We believe the fact that local government is guaranteed representation in the Financial and Fiscal Commission and its share of national revenue is a major victory for local government It is our belief that this major achievement will have a particularly meaningful impact in the evolution of local government in rural areas. The weakness of local government in rural areas and small towns is mainly attributed to the lack of financial resources. Given an ability to generate its re- sources, local government in these areas will be on the same footing as its counterparts in metropoles and urban areas.

The existence of municipalities is a consequence of urbanisation and the inability of national government to address the day-to-day needs of the people for public amenities, goods and services. Municipalities are the instruments of local communities to determine what kind of life they want and what kind of environment they prefer. The constitutional principles that determine what the constitution must contain regarding local government are aimed at enabling municipalities to fulfil their purpose. The purpose of local government is to promote the wellbeing of local communities according to their needs and aspirations. The promotion of the living standards and the quality of life of the people requires that municipal councils should provide public amenities, goods and services that people need to facilitate development in communities.

These primary functions of local government can only be performed if three basic conditions are met, namely an adequate financial resource base, the capacity to manage those resources effectively and efficiently, and an appropriate budgeting, financial management and control system. The financial resource base of a municipality deter- mines its ability to sustain community life consistent with the aspirations of the community. This has to do with the nature of the local economy and its potential for growth.

However, adequate resources must be managed efficiently and effectively. This, in turn, implies that people, both councillors and municipal officials, with appropriate skills, knowledge and insight have to be available. Government spending in all spheres must be developmental. This means that a budgeting system which involves the community as active participants must be de- signed and implemented. Not only must these people be able to define their needs, but they must also be able to prioritise those needs and monitor and assess the impact of spending.

Financial control in the local government sphere has only three purposes, namely to ensure that proper authorisation for expenditure exists, to ensure that spending is goal-orientated and to enhance accountability.

In conclusion, may I dedicate my speech to all activists of local government, not only to those who were involved in the era of the Committee of Ten, Pebco and Cahac in the Cape and Mara in Mangaung, but to all those who were involved in the negotiations, starting with the Soweto Accord, in which you, Mr Chairperson, and some of the comrades in this House were directly involved, and all locally based negotiations and the provin- cial negotiations on local government in which we demanded to negotiate an alternative local government system, but the NP refused us that opportunity at the time.

I dedicate this new chapter of local government to the provincial negotiation forum which took place in the Free State and the negotiations that produced the Local Government Transition Act.

Those negotiations paved the way for the Codesa and multiparty negotiations that gave us Chapter 10 of the interim Constitution. Today we have remained faithful and true to those agreements.

Above all, we are delighted that the guiding principles of the civic movement during the 1970s and the 1980s are actually enshrined and are the cornerstones of this new local government system. Those principles are accountability, consultation, democracy, transparency and report-backs. We still have a tough job to do, though, to convince and teach our counterparts in the NP about the value of these principles.

May the hard work of writing this constitution in the last two years be compensated for by a mature South African patriotism, guided by this constitution and the Bill of Rights. The ANC has delivered, and the future for this country can be none other than black, green and gold. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Before I give Mr Groenewald the floor, I would like to ask members to respect the speakers. I can see a member standing on the floor, engaged in a bilateral discussion. I am sorry, but it is simply not done. Could we please show some respect for the speakers?

Mr P J GROENEWALD: Mr Chairperson, the current draft constitution before us makes provision for three tiers of government, of which local government is the lowest tier. This morning the previous speaker paid tribute to those from the ANC who waged the struggle at this tier of government also to make provision for them to be fully accommodated in the new democracy, as he put it.

I am glad that we can say we have reached the point where people can now no longer argue that apartheid exists and that there are people receiving preferential treatment. The reason I say I am glad to be able to say this, is because it brings with it a co-responsibility for all our people at the third tier of government. That responsibility means that we will all jointly begin paying the same tariffs for at the same services.

When we speak about local government there is always uncertainty on the part of the executors of that tier of government as far as their powers are concerned. If we look at the constitution currently before us, we see the clause 157 in Chapter 7 on the composition and election of municipal councils makes provision for the system that can be used to determine the composition of the councils.

As it currently stands, it provides that a council can be composed on the basis of proportional representation or that it can be composed on the basis of proportional representation as well as wards. We in the FF, held discussions about this matter because it is very important to us in the FF that there should also be a ward system with regard to the composition of these local government councils.

We held this discussion. One can also see that in this constitution it is proposed that this matter should be dealt with further through national legislation. It is true that there are certain areas, particularly in the rural areas, that are so sparsely populated that it is not possible to introduce wards. Our standpoint is then that there must indeed be wards in towns or urban areas.

The ANC has given the assurance that they are also in favour of a ward system. We are therefore assured that provision will definitely be made in national legislation for ward representation. Ward representation in itself is also a type of proportional representation because wards are composed on an equal basis according to the number of voters.

However, we must say to one another that a ward system offers the great advantage that the representative of a specific ward bears a greater responsibility toward the voters in that particular ward. It is also easier for those voters to know precisely who they can take their problems to at local government level.

As far as the powers and functions as proposed in this constitution are concerned, the FF welcomes the fact that the powers are stipulated in Part B of both Schedules 4 and 5, because local government also wants certain powers and there is always a threat on the part of a provincial authority or even regional authorities to take certain powers that belong at local government level away from them.

This constitution provides that the local government has absolute certainty with regard to what its powers are. It is protected in this way. We also welcome this matter because it will bring with it greater certainty as far as local government is concerned. If we look at the powers that they are allocated and we look at Part B of Schedule 5, for example , we will see that they have control of a- cemeteries, inter alia. Furthermore they must take care of markets, local sport activities and facilities, parks and recreation, the need for refuse removal as a result of street trading, lighting, traffic and parking. I have only mentioned a few.

It is also at issue that local governments must have the certainty that they have the funds to be able to manage their affairs properly. If we look at clause 229 with regard to the powers they have to impose tariffs, I want to sound a warning here today. The FF wants to state this very clearly. As soon as we impose tariffs-powers are given here to the effect that they can impose tariffs with regard to rates on property and other taxes-we are dependent on national legislation to a certain extent.

When it comes to the fixing of these tariffs, I want to return to the beginning of my speech when I said that co-responsibility exists. Today we can say that the time is past when there was discrimination on the basis of tariffs. Today we can say that if we use one unit of electricity, we pay the same amount of money for that unit, and that if we use one litre of water, then we all pay the same tariff for that litre of water. The water I drink cannot taste better than the water that another person drinks. If that is our point of departure from now on, then we can be assured that there will be harmony, justice and fairness at local government level, and then all will go well at local government level.

Mr J A RABIE: Mr Chairperson, today I want to discuss the chapters which deal with the President, the national executive authority and the provinces. I will again try to single out the measures which did not appear in the first working document.

To the powers of the President there has been added the calling of referenda in terms of an act of Parliament. At the insistence of the NP this power as well as the appointment of commissions of enquiry has been extended to the premiers of the provinces.

The President may be removed from office by a two-thirds majority on the grounds of a serious violation of the Constitution or the law serious misconduct or inability to perform the functions of office. If this happens, he or she may not receive any benefits of that office, and the President may not serve in any public office.

There is admittedly no Government of National of Unity owing to the obstinacy of the ANC. This organisation has shown no understanding for fact that South Africa is still going to be in a transitional phase for some time. This situation makes it absolutely vital for there to be consultation with other parties in order to establish democracy properly.

To expect only an opposition role to fulfil this function is outrageous and naive, to say the least. The NP introduced an amendment to try to resolve the issue. This involves a consultative council which consists of the President as chairperson and members of the Cabinet appointed by the President in general or for any specific purpose or activities. Other members would consist of the Leader of the Largest Minority Party and at least two other representatives of any willing party with at least five per cent of the seats in the National Assembly.

The consultative council would discuss matters which require multiparty co-operation, such as the Budget, Foreign Affairs, security, national unity and any matter referred to it by the Cabinet. The President would, in consultation with the Leader of the Largest Minority Party, determine the procedure, and any other matter which deals with the functioning of the council. This was not an attempt to act against the wishes of the majority, but rather a serious attempt to promote reconciliation and national unity. The ANC summarily swept this proposal from the table without thorough discussion.

The NP trusts that the ANC will not realise too late that a consultative mechanism is essential for our circumstances. Even in the old dispensation the Government consulted the opposition on sensitive matters. [Interjections.]

The ANC proposal on the Speaker of the National Assembly got into difficulties because it was an ill-considered step. They wanted the Speaker of the National Assembly also to be the Speaker of the National Council of Provinces. They forgot that the National Council of Provinces has completely new functions and that it will function differently to the Senate.

Clause 92(2) establishes beyond any doubt that the Cabinet is collectively and individually accountable to Parliament. They must also act in accordance with the Constitution and must report regularly to Parliament. The Cabinet can also by law assign a function to a member of a provincial executive council or a municipal council. For that reason it is also absolutely vital for the Govern to create me necessary power for these spheres of Government.

The measures for the structure of the provinces correspond more or less with those of Parliament. I shall refer only to a few of them. Firstly the committee system works according to the same principle. Secondly an Act can be referred by 20% of the members to the Constitutional Court to test its constitutionality. Thirdly they may write their own constitution. Fourthly political parties receive financial and administrative aid. Fifthly the Leader of the Official Opposition is recognised in the provinces in accordance with the constitution.

I would however be neglecting my duty if I did not mention that I am sorry that we only have an English text of the constitution to work with, whereas there are 11' official languages in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr R K SIZANI: Mr Chairperson, I am joining this debate for the first time this morning. I want to say by way of an opening remark that my party is known not to be over-enthusiastic or excited about some of the changes and such things as the drafting of the constitution, unlike our counter- parts in the ANC. However, today I do feel we have also been part of this historic moment, with the drafting of the new constitution.

I am joining the debate to talk a little about the provinces and to remind the Assembly about some of the things which we have said before. One of the things I would like to remind the Assembly about is that at the World Trade Centre we were opposed to the Constitutional Principles that were entrenched in the Constitution to guide us in relation to the drafting of this constitution.

We felt that if we allowed that type of process to go on, it would be difficult for us to bring about any changes that we might like to effect to the new constitution. It might also allow us to be amenable to blackmail and stalling by other parties in the negotiations. Thirdly, it would prevent us from bringing about innovative and creative changes.

Let me again say that, with regard to the provinces, the PAC regrets that the constitutional principles have deprived the Constitutional Assembly of the power to review the boundaries of the nine provinces. These provinces were imposed by the World Trade Centre process without consulting the people and without accommodating possible land claims, and were based largely on ethnicity and political convenience. These issues are clearly stated in the minority report of Anvil Steyn, a member of the demarcation committee at the World Trade Centre. That report was suppressed by that process.

Even at this late hour, the PAC would call for a review of boundaries of the provinces. We need to ascertain whether we need nine provinces or less and we must deal with the question of boundary adjustments. We suggested then as we do now that there is a clear-cut criterion that we can apply when dealing with the question of the provinces, the issues of ensuring economic viability and bringing governance closer to the people.

The question of de-emphasising ethnicity as a criterion in drafting provinces is very important. It has already been shown since the interim Constitution has been in operation that the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Province and Mpumalanga might be involved in boundary wars. I wonder if we want to go back in history to tribal wars over claims for territory. I am worried that our constitution, in a democratic country, may lead to tribal conflict in our own country.

I wish to deal briefly with the issue of powers. We accept that provinces are a distinct tier of government and that they should be given powers which are derived from the constitution. The PAC therefore was satisfied with Schedule 4 of the fifth draft of the constitution, which by and large gave provinces powers concurrent with those of national government.

Allow me to say that the proposals which were made later in the process by the ANC, forced of course by legal opinions and so on, that provinces should be given exclusive powers in Schedule 5, apart from concurrent powers, is an unhealthy development as far as we are concerned. We are not happy with that. We think that the provinces have now been given too many powers in our constitution. We think that we are moving towards a clear-cut federalism in our constitution and that we are going to Balkanise our country, contrary to what we thought we were going to do. We therefore want to express our concern about the extent of the powers that have now been given to the provinces.

The provinces have been given a great many powers in the constitution, including exclusive powers. For the first time in our country they have been given a much greater say in national legislation via the National Council of Provinces. There will be a much greater empowerment of provinces through the National Council of Provinces. Why do we now want to create small enclaves of legislative powers for them in our constitution?

With regard to the question of provinces and how they are going, we want to say that although we have given the National Council of Provinces our qualified support, we are still worried about the spectre of overgovernment. We are worried that the National Council of Provinces has again been made a second chamber of Parliament, whereas we thought it would not be a chamber of Parliament, but a sort of advisory council of provinces to advise national government on national legislation.

We are worried about the spectre of seeing nine provincial premiers coming with full delegations to Cape Town with a fanfare. This is going to require more offices, more travel expenses and other expenses in our national government, when that money should actually go towards building the capacity of our people on the ground.

We want to remind those who at this late hour are still calling for more powers for the provinces that unlike America, Canada and Australia, provinces in our country are an artificial creation of the interim Constitution. They are not organic states like those of the United States of America.

If we want to give them more powers, we need to ensure that they have the capacity to carry out those functions we want to give to them. If one looks at the provinces objectively, one will find that some of them have not shown the capacity or the ability to carry out even the functions they were given under the interim Constitution. Why then do we want to give them more powers? It simply means that we are not interested in empowering our people on the ground. We want to emasculate the only tier of government, which is the national government that has the power to implement a single policy for the country. We are concerned about that.

Mr K M ANDREW: Mr Chair-person, when we look at the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill before us, we need to remind ourselves of what I consider to be the essence of the political challenge facing South Africa--it has been the challenge for many years-and that is how to reconcile the legitimate aspirations of the majority of the people of this country with the legitimate concerns of the minorities within this country. Therefore, when one is looking at this constitution, one needs to ask oneself not only whether it is a democratic constitution, but also whether it caters adequately for the wide diversity and deep divisions in our society.

Our constitution does make provision for provincial and local government spheres. However, in looking at this we unfortunately come from completely different directions, different mindsets. From the DP's point of view, we look first at the individual. We say we must give that individual as much freedom and as much choice and power to direct and make decisions in respect of his or her own life as possible. Where individuals cannot manage things themselves, we say one should allocate power to the level closest to those people, which means local government. What local government cannot handle, provincial governments should handle, and finally what provincial governments cannot handle should be left to the national government.

The ANC, in contrast, has a different perspective. It takes the view that one must have a national government, and that national government must relinquish powers only when it can trust other spheres to look after them, and that it must retain wherever possible the right to intervene if national government believes things are not going the way they should. That is a completely different perspective.

Our view is that each sphere of government is primarily responsible to its electorate, and not to some other sphere of government. The ANC perspective tends to be that each level of government has its rights subject to the supervision of some other sphere of government.

If one looks at the provinces, we believe that the matters which have been allocated to provinces and local governments in Schedules 4 and 5 are appropriate. However, we believe that too few of the functional areas have been allocated exclusive powers in respect of both provincial and local government and in addition local government has been allocated too few powers.

The right of the national government to intervene in respect of provincial matters is far too wide. In fact, it is wider than those provided for in the interim Constitution. We are, however, pleased that judicial review has been restored in respect of provincial powers, but we are unhappy that the presumption remains within the constitution.

The effects of this are going to be an overlapping of responsibility which will result in inefficiency in decision-making and, in particular, inefficiency in the delivery of services and an unwieldy bureaucracy, as each level of government duplicates the efforts of other levels and attempts to second-guess what they should be doing.

We also have the very serious problem, which we have seen in respect of other aspects of our Government in the past two years, of a lack of accountability because of joint responsibility. When one asks who is responsible for either a success, but more particularly when things are not happening, each level of government will say that it is not its fault, the national government provided this norm and standard which cannot be implemented. So it goes on at the various levels of government, and one has a lack of accountability. This is also, of course, a recipe for conflict.

Let me turn finally to local government. Inadequate attention has been given to local government. There was quite a lot of preliminary work in terms of seminars, but the actual production of the text of the constitution has been rushed over the past few weeks, and there has not been the necessary time for this to be referred to local governments throughout South Africa with a view to having them give their opinions and point out both policy and technical problems that they may have. Local government has, however, been recognised constitutionally for the first time as a distinct sphere of government, but it will depend on the wisdom and goodwill of national and provincial governments for it to realise its full potential.

In the final analysis, we can have whatever constitution we want, but unless we can establish a democratic culture in our society, encourage and allow political tolerance to develop, and provide space for variety and free choice amongst our people, no constitution is going to achieve what we need, namely reconciliation of the aspirations of the majority and the concerns of the minorities.

Mr J H DE LANGE: Mr Chairperson, hon members, I rise on this occasion to speak from some notes hastily scribbled this morning, in full support of this first democratically drafted constitution for South Africa. Although there are some aspects of the constitution that one may not be in full agreement with, I think the final product that we have been able to agree upon is not only a tribute to this country, but a tribute to constitution drafting.

In fact, if one looks at this constitution one sees that it is unique amongst constitutions in the world. We have come up with many new and creative ideas and, at the end of the day, if anyone were to ask us which country's constitution does this constitution mirror, we would be able to show them bits and pieces from Germany, Israel or wherever, but at the end of the day this is a South African constitution, drafted by South Africans, without intervention from outside. In fact, it is a home-grown product. It is for this reason that I stand here with very great pride, honour and a sense of joy, because I think we are all part of a very profound sense of history-making in our country. I am not sure that we always realise, when we sit here, that in these days we are not only drafting this constitution, but are, in fact, part of history; in fact, we are making history.

When people like Cyril Ramaphosa, Kader Asmal, Roelf Meyer, Leon Wessels, Colin Eglin, Bulelani Ngcuka and others are mentioned one day, they will be mentioned in the same breath as the great constitution drafters in the past, people like Madison and others. It is with this profound sense of history-making that we should actually be celebrating these days we are living in.

The point I am trying to make is that it is not only the final product and the final words in this constitution which are important. Equally important is the process that we have had to go through to agree to and adopt this constitution. This is a process that started many decades ago and that, in the nineties, has culminated in a constitution- drafting process which led, firstly, to an interim Constitution, and has now led to the first democratically drafted constitution for this country.

We have had other constitutions. For example, in 1910 the four White "homelands" in this country got together and drafted a constitution as a marriage of convenience between British imperialism and White capital in this country, which excluded the majority of our people. In 1961, internal capital, particularly White Afrikaner and English capital, got together, and drafted a constitution which again excluded the majority of our people. In 1983 there was an attempt to co-opt some of the people in our country, but again, the vast majority of our people-Africans-were excluded from that constitution.

We then went through a constitution-drafting process, a negotiation process, by means of which we were able to adopt our interim Constitution in 1993. However, we know who drafted that Constitution. There were 26 parties present and very few of those parties had any legitimacy. At the end of the day, we were left with six or seven of them in this Parliament. That is why it will be such a profound moment in our history when we actually adopt this constitution tomorrow, be- cause we have now, for the first time in the history of our country, been able to draft and adopt a constitution with maximum consensus and, for the first time ever, it has been done democratically.

I also want to pay some tributes. Firstly, I want to pay tribute to one of the great sons of Africa, Comrade Cyril Ramaphosa. [Applause.] I think there can be no doubt that with his tremendous intellect, his charm, his warm smile and his ability to find very creative solutions for issues that sometimes seem intractable, he will never be extinguished from the history of this country. I think it is his leadership qualities and his ability to work collectively, not only within his own party, but also with people who hold views diametrically opposed to his, that make up the greatness of the man. It will always be with a sense of pride that I will remember that I was part of a tremendously talented negotiating team in the ANC that was led by Cyril Ramaphosa, which has been able to bring us to this point that we have reached. I think this country owes a special tribute to Cyril Ramaphosa.

I also want to pay special tribute to someone I have come to know in the past few years, and that is Leon Wessels. Leon Wessels has not only been an able and willing assistant and deputy chairper- son to Cyril Ramaphosa, but in his own way he has imprinted his own intellect and his tremendous ability not to be overcome by adversity, on this process. [Applause.] I think that Leon's leaving this Parliament, will be a tremendous loss not only to the NP, but to Parliament itself.

I also want to pay tribute to my comrades in the smaller team that I worked with in this negotiation and constitution-drafting process-Pravin Gordhan, Bulelani Ngcuka, Fink Haysom, Essop "Deadlock" Pahad, Collins Chabane and M J Mahlangu and the local government team. These are the people who worked in our team and I want to pay special tribute to them in particular. [Applause.] They are the ones who have had to pull me into line at the times when I have been at my most difficult, which has been regularly, and I thank them for that.

I also want to thank the opposition. I have had a tremendous working relationship with people like Piet Marais, Neels Ackermann, Jac Rabie and others within the NP. I am not going to mention all their names. There are so many of them.

I also want to thank Colin Eglin. Whenever we were worried about anything, Colin Eglin always used to provide suggestions in an attempt to resolve that problem for us. I think it has been of tremendous benefit to have had him with us, and to have had him as a member of the multilateral teams or negotiators that have had to debate the issues that we were enjoined to resolve. I think we also need to pay special tribute to Colin Eglin. [Applause.]

I am sure that the next thing I am going to say is going to be a bit of a surprise, but I particularly want to thank the panel of experts and all the technical experts who have assisted us. We have had some interesting times together. We have had some heated debates and some clashes with them, but I must say that at no time have we ever doubted their abilities, and a lot of what is good in this constitution can be directly attributed to these experts. On behalf of everyone I want to thank them for that.

Now I want to turn to someone whom I regard as one of the most humble giants of constitution drafting in this country, Adv Gerrit Grove. Not many hon members will know him. He is a very quiet, unassuming man. Not often in my life have I met anyone who has not only the drafting skills and the intellect to match that he has, but who also understands government the way that, Gerrit Grove does. [Applause.] In both constitutions that we have drafted, the interim Constitution and this one, Gerrit has been central to the process. I think that the ANC and South Africans in general should salute him for his enormous and selfless contribution to the drafting of this constitution.

I also want to thank the Canadian who came to our country and has assisted us with drafting a constitution in simple English. Sometimes I thought it was not that simple, but I want to thank Phil Knight and David who have very ably assisted us.

Lastly, let me say that I think that one of the principles in this constitution which is unique is contained in Chapter 3, and that is the whole issue of co-operative governance. I want to agree with much that Colin Eglin said yesterday in this regard. When we started off with this process we had two options. We were able to draft a system of governance which would be confrontational in style as our interim Constitution is, or we had the option of moving towards a co-operative form of governance. I am happy to say that every single party present in this Parliament at the moment was able to embrace, and unconditionally too, the principle of co-operative governance. I think that that only bodes well for this country, because what it means is that not only is it a question, in our ordinary life, our ordinary political life, of talking reconciliation and trying to find each other, but our form of government also enjoins us now to ensure that our government structures do not work in conflict with one another, that we should work within a system and within a structure which is co-operative in form.

Nowhere in the world-at least that I am aware of-has there been a chapter like this in a constitution, one actually spelling out the principles of co-operative governance for the country, with each structure of government, each organ of State having to confine its operations and its work within the parameters of such principles. I think that if there is one unique characteristic that we have brought to constitution-making it is the emphasis upon and spelling out of this whole principle of co-operative governance, because once we agreed to these principles, and did so unanimously, from that moment onwards the constitution drafting became so much easier.

There are many other things that I can say, but I think I have said enough during this constitution- drafting process, and I thank everyone for putting up with me for as long as they have. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Thank you very much, Mr De Lange. I also thank you for reminding us that we are all part of history, and therefore at 15:00, on the steps of the Senate opposite the Marks Building, a CA photograph will be taken of all of us.

Dr T S FARISANI: Mr Chairperson, I do not know whether I should say good morning South Africa, whether I should say good evening or good day, because I am not God. I do not know what the next 24 hours have in store for the nation. God is waiting, the nation is waiting, everybody is waiting. The child must now be born, for this dispensation has been pregnant for the past two years. [Laughter.]

I dedicate this speech to Martin Luther King Junior, the dreamer. I dedicate it to Isaac Tshifhiwa Muoshe who made the supreme sacrifice for the liberation of our people, and I want to dedicate this speech to God Almighty who made it possible for us to perform the miracle that has earned the respect of the international community.

May God protect our people

Nkosi sikelel' iAfrika. Morena boloka setjhaba, sa heso.

God seen Suid-Afrika. God bless South Africa. Mudzimu fhatutshedza Afurika. Hosi katekisa Afrika.

Let us look at the preamble to our constitution, which is the area that I want to highlight. In the old, now discredited, document, once called the Constitution for South Africa, we had a chorus- like preamble which went:

In humble submission to Almighty God, Who controls the destinies of nations and the history of peoples;

Who gathered our forefathers together from many lands and gave them this their own;

Who has guided them from generation to generation;

Who has wondrously delivered them from the dangers that beset them. . .

That is not the language of the new constitution. Whereas the old one had only forefathers, the new one has foremothers and forefathers. [Laughter.] Whereas the old one spoke of "their" land, referring to a small segment of the population only, we now refer to the whole nation by the definitive possessive word, "their". We no longer talk of a destiny and a history of one section of the population, but about the history and destiny of the whole country. We no longer talk about some South Africans being protected against other South Africans. We now talk about protection for one and all, across religious, racial and gender barriers.

In other words, this preamble takes us across the Rubicon. Where God and apartheid were synonyms, here God is the Spirit who moves the process of transformation; where we had "children of God"-that is. Whites-and "children of a lesser god"-that is. Blacks-we now have children of the same God, who cares for all equally. Where God was required to sign an ideological blank cheque for apartheid, on which Verwoerd wrote what he wanted, on which Vorster scribbled what he dreamt, and on which Botha said what he preferred to say, we now have a preamble which takes God in all seriousness as the Spirit that inspires the population to move from the era of apartheid to the era of freedom. May God bless our people! [Interjections]

In the spirit of Martin Luther King, we also have a dream. We have a dream that a new South Africa will be born where workers will not be locked out of earning their bread. [Interjections.] There is a way of saying it in Afrikaans.

Leave my post alone; it is my food. Apartheid does not lock people out of their workplace, for work is actually their food.

We have a dream of a new South Africa in which neither Afrikaans nor English nor Venda, etc, will be used as a disguise for promoting apartheid chameleons in the name of democracy. [Applause.] Of course, we have had this dream for some time, and we continue to have this dream. We shall fight for this dream, for a South Africa where property will not be the monopoly of the select members of a Herrenvolk, but where property will be accessible to everybody.

Where is one's Christianity, where have those Christian values gone, when one talks the language of lockouts, of Afrikaans only, of property for a few?

What has happened to that Christianity of yours? [Applause.]

Now the question is: Where is the Moses of the ACDP, the Rev Meshoe? Why do we not hear him protecting Christian values on this issue?

The spirit of the preamble to the new constitution calls for justice to prevail, and lockouts are a form of injustice. We call for freedom in the place of apartheid oppression. In the new dispensation martyrs are martyrs and no longer terrorists. South Africa is for all and not just for some. We call for unity in diversity, not for division and rule.

The Constitution, and not law and order, is the supreme authority in our country, no longer promoting the culture of some citizens who live above the law-the likes of Magnus Malan. [Interjections.] Now the ANC is ready. We stand before the Red Sea. The ANC is ready to cross.

Are the NP and their friends ready to cross the Red Sea? Now we stand before the Rubicon. P W Botha failed to cross the Rubicon. *Why are the NP still in doubt? Now is the time to cross the Rubicon. [Applause.]

God is waiting upon the nation. The ANC is ready to take this nation to its tomorrow. The ANC is ready to create a new South Africa for our children. Why is the NP trembling? Ayangena, ayaphuma, ayesaba, ayadidizela amagwala. [The cowards are coming in, going out, shivering and wavering with uncertainty.]

Let us cross the Rubicon! [Applause.]

In conclusion, let me say that actions speak louder than words. We will not be judged by our rhetorical support for Christian and democratic values. People will judge us on whether, like God, we give this planet to all or whether we want to keep some continents for ourselves. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr 0 C CHABANE: Mr Chairperson, it is going to be very difficult for me to speak after such a great speaker.

Firstly, let me thank all the people who participated in this process. Without singling out any of them, I think that they performed very well.

Secondly, I would like to indicate that the deadlock which we have now, the conflict which we have about certain clauses, proves two points. The first is that some of the great thinkers in the past did indicate that one of the major factors which would determine the transformation of society would be the outcome of the conflict between labour and capital. In that regard, if one looks at the clauses which are in dispute, one sees a clear indication of the struggle between labour and capital. It is the duty of this Assembly, we ourselves, to try to find a way out, in such a way that we do not increase that conflict.

The second point is that in the early sixties, the ANC identified the conflict in our country to be one of class and race. If one marries the issue of education with the issues of the lockout and property rights, one sees a clear indication of what was meant at that time. It is within that context that these issues need to be resolved. They need to be resolved with a clear understanding of what we are actually dealing with.

Much reference has been made to constitutional principles. Our approach to the drafting of the constitution, and our understanding of the meaning of the Constitutional Principles and their application, was not such that we understood Constitutional Principles to be a set of topics around which we needed to write the main body of the constitution. We understood the Constitutional Principles to be the framework within which the constitution would need to move if we were to draft the constitution as envisaged in 1994.

It has also been pointed out that the Constitutional Principles restricted the aspirations of the parties and prevented them from doing what they wanted to do. From the beginning, our approach as the ANC was not to write an ANC constitution. For us, the challenge was to do what would be best for this country, regardless of our personal feelings at some point.

If we recall the history and aims of the Constitutional Principles, we will remember that they were intended to achieve what was considered at that time the best for this country and for transformation. Therefore the ANC was prepared at all times to comply with the Constitutional Principles in the drafting of the constitution, at the same time securing what would be best for the country as a whole.

There are speakers who came to this podium and misrepresented the facts. I refer specifically to a speaker from the NP. I will not mention his name.

An HON MEMBER: What is his name?

Mr O C CHABANE: Jac Rabie. We entered into serious and honest negotiations with them. He was in the team in which I participated. It is unfortunate that he came here and tried to misrepresent the facts. We were not there to score points as the ANC, as I have already indicated. We were there to ensure that what came out of those discussions was what would be best for this country believe that what came out of those discussions was the best we could achieve under the circumstances. To come here and say that the NP proposed a consultation forum is a misrepresentation of the facts. What the member did not tell the House was exactly what I mentioned initially when I said that the struggle in this country was characterised by race and class.

The intention of that council or consultative body would be to ensure that even if there was a Black government, there would always be a White watchdog which that Black government would have to consult. It is within that context that the ANC said it could not accept that. We did that in a very good spirit and in very honest discussions. For Jac Rabie to come to this podium and say that the ANC did not agree and that there was no reconciliation about this issue constitutes a misrepresentation. They just wanted to make sure that the Black government would always have a White watchdog around its neck. That was completely unacceptable to us. We did not see it as controversial. We did not see it as a major point of dispute. We all accepted in good spirit that we were not going to raise this issue in public. Jac Rabie decided to raise it in public and I thought we needed to put the record straight.

Secondly, in the chapters we are dealing with in this debate, we have achieved what is best for this country in terms of the Constitutional Principles. In our view we have managed to adhere to most of the Constitutional Principles. The Constitutional Court will still have to judge whether we did so or not, but we are convinced that the principles contained in the chapters on the founding principles, Parliament, the provinces and so on have been complied with.

The PAC tell us we are giving too much to the provinces. This is what we are doing. I would like to indicate to the PAC that if we had to go the federal way we could say we have given too little to the provinces. We need to accept the reality that in terms of the Constitutional Principles and what was agreed upon at the World Trade Centre, we have a unitary state which has strong federal elements. We do not need to run away from that. We need to accept it and do what is right.

We believe that the powers which have been given to the provinces are sufficient for the running of the provinces and this country, and that they enhance the democracy which we are talking about. Therefore we do not owe anybody any apology with regard to the issues which we have raised about the powers allocated to the provinces, the national government or the local governments. We believe if there is any chance for improvement, generations to come still have the chance to do so.

We believe that whilst this constitution is a document which should last, we should not make it impossible for society to develop. If, 20 years down the line, society feels that what we did was wrong, they have the chance to amend it, but only if they are satisfied that the majority of people agree with what they want to do. It is in that spirit that I would like to call upon every party in this Assembly to vote in favour of this constitution. If not, then a very historic moment will be missed.

If one remembers what happened in 1954, when Bantu education was introduced, and in 1976 when Afrikaans was introduced in education. . .

An HON MEMBER: Is that a threat?

Mr O C CHABANE: I am not threatening anybody. If the hon member wants threats, I can give them to him, but I am not threatening him here. [Laughter.] Actually, I do not threaten, I do.

I would like to indicate that we seriously need to consider that if we are going to hold this constitution to ransom on the basis of education, we should remember that this country has many milestones, events related to that issue. It is in that spirit that I am calling upon all parties to put then- heads together and resolve these issues as quickly as possible. I would also add, for the benefit of those people and those parties that would like to vote against this constitution that there will never be another opportunity to vote for the constitution in the manner in which we are supposed to be doing it tomorrow, because after that they might not have an opportunity to put their cards in those slots in order to vote. [Applause.]

Mr C ACKERMANN: Mr Chairperson, I have always regarded Collins Chabane as a gentle person. I take it that the belligerent speech he delivered here today was aimed at the fact that he would like to become Premier of the Northern Province. [Interjections.] We wish him well.

I want to tell Dr Farisani that the NP has long since crossed the Red Sea. We crossed the Red Sea in 1989.1 want to tell him and the ANC today that if they wish to cross it only now, they should watch out that it does not submerge them like it did the Egyptians. That is what could happen to them. (Interjections.]

It is a privilege once again to be able to participate in this historic debate. When I participated last week, there were two outstanding issues, namely firstly the manner of the constitution of the permanent delegates of the council, as contained in clause 61, and secondly the whole question of a two-thirds majority when a particular matter involves a province, as set out in clause 74(3).

As regards the former matter, it is my view that a measure of satisfaction was attained. The principles of proportionality and the participation of minority parties in the so-called "six" are indeed contained in this constitution, and national legislation will be formulated by taking these principles into consideration in order to establish a watertight formula. The whole question regarding a two-thirds majority in the provincial legislature is a matter that is more involved than would appear on the surface. Therefore the NP is of the view that it is indeed a serious matter. It could be reasoned that, as clause 74(1)(a) and (b) makes provision for a two-thirds majority in both the Council of Provinces and the National Assembly, this will render sufficient protection to the provinces. That is indeed a valid point. However, seeing that in clause 104(2) we have provided that a province must gain a two-thirds majority in its legislature in order to change its name, and a provincial constitution must be adopted with a two-thirds majority, as set out in clause 142, it strikes one as very strange that the provincial borders can be changed by a mere majority of votes in the legislature. Surely the substance of a province lies in its borders. In the history of the world it is the question of borders and border violations that have triggered off most of the wars. This is therefore a matter that should not be approached too lightly. Consequently the NP's position is that a two-thirds majority should also apply when there is talk of a serious matter like border changes.

Where will it end if Gauteng is now already laying claim to the Rosslyn industrial area of the North West? Where will it end, when seen in the light of all the other aspects to which Mr Sizani has referred?

We did propose an amendment which, however, was not accepted by the ANC caucus. I specifically say the "ANC caucus", because to my mind the facts should be recorded for posterity. As was the practice during the recent negotiating process, when matters reached a deadlock they were referred to a so-called channel which then had to decide. My fellow negotiator in the ANC, Mr Ngcuka, an honourable person for whom I have the highest regard, and I took this particular matter to the channel. The channel consisted of the two of us, as well as Mr Ramaphosa and Mr Meyer. It was then decided that a two-thirds majority in the legislature would apply when a province's borders were to be changed. The next morning this was reiterated by Mr Ramaphosa in the presence of members from both sides at a channel meeting dealing with outstanding matters of the National Assembly.

During that day, however, Mr Ngcuka mentioned to me that his and Mr Ramaphosa's decision had been rejected in ANC ranks and that they could no longer honour their undertaking. From within the ANC's own ranks a serious reflection was cast upon the integrity of both Mr Ngcuka and Mr Ramaphosa, which must have been an embarrassment to them.

Notwithstanding this occurrence, I wish to reiterate my continued high regard for the integrity and co-operation of these persons. I will always remember Mr Ngcuka's diligent attempts to secure a future for his fellow senators in the ANC.

However the question is: Why did the ANC ranks not agree to a two-thirds majority? The apparent answer, despite any sweetening argument that may be used, is to change the borders of the Northern Cape in order to include 1,5 million people from the North West in the Northern Cape. This is regardless of the assurance given to the people of Namaqualand and the North West by the ANC leaders after the elections, namely that they would not be changing the borders of the Northern Cape. When a million-mostly unemployed-people are to be included in a province where 40% of its 750 000 people are already unemployed, that is a very serious matter.

I therefore want to appeal to the ANC, for the sake of the integrity of Mr Ngcuka and Mr Ramaphosa, as well as for the sake of the Premier of the Northern Cape, Mr Dipico, to hold a referendum on this matter in the Northern Cape. Then they will show South Africa that they do not place their own party -political interests above the will of the people of these provinces.

Finally, lam perplexed that the FF has not shown much interest in the Council of Provinces. Whereas it was their position that cultural groups should have representation in this council, we now have a resounding silence on this matter. It has not even been mentioned in any multilateral discussions. [Time expired.]

Ms G L MAHLANGU: Mr Chairperson, Mr Ackermann can shout rhetoric until his vocal chords give in. He will never see the NP in power again. [Laughter.]

I want to thank my comrades, those selfless men and women who fought hard against the racist, sexist and undemocratic apartheid regime and who continued fighting to address the atrocities of the past. The result of that fight is the constitution we have to adopt less than 30 hours from now.

I am proud to have been a member of the Constitutional Assembly, because for the first time, after decades of oppression, our people were listened to in their millions. Through the submissions made to the assembly, our people spelled out what kind of South Africa they needed, a country in which all the people, young and old, literate and illiterate, with all their cultural and linguistic diversities, would live in harmony. There is glory for all the people of our country for the participatory role they played.

Our negotiators cannot be forgotten, having spent sleepless nights in executing the mandate of the electorate. Gone are the days of legalised anarchy, abuse of power, human rights violations and the violation of women's and children's rights through the inhuman constitutions of the past which were used by the NP regime to perpetrate acts of violence against the masses of South Africa.

Our dignity is now finally restored by this constitution. No individual or institution can ever abuse power. The adoption of this constitution comes at an opportune time when the Malan trial, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Eugene de Kock trial and many others are on. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has answered and is in the process of answering root causes of a lot of pain suffered by mothers, wives, husbands and children at the hands of State agents.

With this constitution in our hands there will not be any need for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the future. I am shocked and disgusted at people who, after so many concessions have been made to accommodate them despite their insignificant results in the national election, are today threatening to hold the whole country to ransom by threatening to pull out or vote against this constitution.

This constitution, I must emphasise, is not for a group of individuals but for the country at large. Many Afrikaner children are at school with other racial groups and have no problem with it. Section 29(2) of the new constitution even states clearly:

Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions . . .

What else do those hon members need? They are given a free hand here and yet they have the nerve to think that we can be held to ransom. We are looking at people like Mzizi, Gogotya and Bikitsha, who are helping to keep their languages as inferior as possible. I know that Bikitsha loves his mother tongue very much. Yet today those members are encouraged to fight for a language that is supposed to enjoy higher status than all the other languages. That is a disgrace! [Interjections.]

By allowing everyone to have so much say in this process the ANC is teaching hon members what democracy is all about. We have the power and yet we never abuse it, like some of those hon members did in the past. Never in the past would members have heard of a Public Protector. It is because the ANC is committed to accountability, transparency, fairness and justice that we have such structures today.

Through the Human Rights Commission respect will be promoted and human rights monitored and observed. We assure everyone that the torture and arbitrary detention that resulted in the deaths of so many people in our country, including Steve Biko, are things of the past. Go ahead and try us on that referendum.

Le tla kopana ie pela di falla. Le tla kopana le sefako; tadi e antsha. [You will be in grave trouble. There will be a hail storm.]

We are proud of the establishment of a gender commission, which confirms that until all women are free and empowered no country is liberated. This commission will unite the women of this country and encourage participatory democracy. The commission must be able to reach our rural illiterate and poor women. Women are advocating seven national commissioners and nine representatives from all the provinces to ensure that the structure filters down to all women on the ground, with the possibility of gender desks at local level.

It would be appropriate if by 9 August, when millions of women will be marching the streets of South Africa commemorating National Women's Day, the Commission on Gender Equality was in place so that there would be more to celebrate.

Thank you, Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, in whom we trust and in whom the people of South Africa trusted, for the fact that this process will today culminate in a document which is going to take all the people of this country on board, a constitution which is going to make sure that the people of South Africa live in harmony. [Applause.]

Ms 0 N KHOBE: Mr Chairperson, I want to start off by greeting the members. I felt I should say something today on this constitution of South Africa. Ngithanda ukuqala ngokuwubongela loMthethosisekelo. Thina uma sihiezi endaweni esikuyo namakhosikazi, ngoba yithina bantu esasihiupheldle kakhulu, futhi sasiligaziwa nokuthi sikhona, siyaye sithi loMthethosisekelo okhona uwumoiidii wezultandane, futhi uyindoda yabafelokazi. [lhlombe.] Siqhubeke sithi uyintofontofo okwekhekhe laseMkhnmbane. [Kwahlekwa.] Bayalazi-ke abaqhamuka eThekwini ukuthi Uyini ikhekhe laseMkhumbane. Lokhu ngikushiso wukuthi ngoinhiaka 30 kuMashi ngike ngaya endaweni yami ngihamba noNgqongqoshe wezeZindlu. Umama okwathiwa makasarnukele. (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)

[Firstly, I would like to extend my thanks for the constitution. When we are resting with our wives where we come from, because we are the most destitute people who were not even known to exist, we usually say this constitution is the supporter of the orphans, and it is the husband of the widows. [Applause.] We go on and say it is delicious like a cake from Mkhumbane. Those people coming from Durban know what a Mkhumbane cake is. [Laughter.]

I am saying this because on 30 March I visited my place, accompanied by the Minister of Housing. A woman who was asked to welcome us said: . . .]

I will say this in Tswana because she said it in Tswana.

One a re, O! Modimo wa me! (She said, "Oh, my God!"]

She did not welcome us. In fact, she prayed.

O! Modimo wa me! A motse o monnye wa Mapaputle! Kante le wena o a itsiwe mo dibukeng tsa bophelo? Gatwe mo motseng o o latlhilweng wa be wa latlhwa ie ke beng ba ona. . . (Translation of Tswana paragraph follows.)

[Oh, my God! Maputle, what a small city you are! Are you also well known in the books of life? They say in this city, which was abandoned even by its own inhabitants . . . ]

. . . where Mr V Sifora comes from. . .

. . . Jesus our Lord will be born. Today a child is born in Jerusalem, and his name is Mandela. From that city came a Minister. The boer government came and went, but we still do not even know who its secretary was. Then came the Mangope government, but we never really got to know him too, and he is now also gone. Today we have a Black Government. Oh Mapaputle, what a small city you are! My mother used to say that. I do not know why our people . . .]

[ . . . our children said we are what we are, not being literate, because of them. [Interjections.] Our fathers were repairing shoes, getting 15 pence and 20 pence. My witness in this House is the hon member Albertina Sisulu who knows how I grew up. She knows my sufferings and the sufferings of my father in their hands.

This is not an ANC constitution, but a constitution for the whole of South Africa. But because they are people who are used to dirty tricks and they do not want to get rid of them, they do not want to get rid of corruption. That is why they want a clause that when it is being applied, they will say this is caused by the government that you, the people, elected. This is what Mr De Klerk is saying out there when he canvasses for votes. He says the ANC promised to provide, but is failing to do so, therefore vote for the NP.

We have been living in squatter camps all these years, yet we were. . .]

.. born and bred in South Africa and are also citizens of this country

Why were we living in squatter camps? We were removed from the houses we were occupying with our wives because of their dirty laws. Today, however, we are invited to come and live there.

There is a Xhosa song that we, the people who are dancing, sing, that goes like this: . . .]

Come let us sleep together in one blanket, but it is of a goat skin. [Laughter.]]

I was also very annoyed about those people who say this constitution does not say anything about God. There is no one in this House who does not believe in God, because everybody knows God. The NP .at down, took the Bible and extracted anything that had something to do with apartheid. But today, when the NP tells us that the constitution does not say anything about God, we want to say we do not want to talk about imitation Christians, but we talk about believers. People who are believers are those Whites who joined us in the ANC, who realised that we are suffering and they wanted to share that suffering with us. Not the NP. [Applause.]

In fact, the NP ate the manna that did not belong to them. Today, this manna is back with us. We, however, do not say that we do not want to give them this manna.] They were greedy and ate the wrong manna, yet we are saying let them come and share this manna with us.

Concerning education, I would ask them to come back because what they want to do will cause havoc in this country. Let them come back and agree with this clause.At present they are against this clause.

We have children, beautiful girls, who hug their children in the stadiums [Laughter.] Tomorrow, Mr Ackennann and myself will be in-laws be- cause my child will be married to his child. [Applause.] Let them come back here so that we can agree with this constitution so that it can be referred to the people. Let them get rid of their unjust law so that we can come together and share the same blanket, being the people of South Africa.

I want to continue and say something about abortion.] I want to say something about abortion. I think women are emotionally distressed. Abortion should be freely available. It is the exception to the rule and therefore a personal affair. Those self-righteous religious bodies who treat women as second-class, inferior citizens, for instance- and members will excuse me-the Roman Catholic fraternity of unmarried men and the Dutch Reformed fraternity of married Calvinist men, the NP, have no right to impose and force their male chauvinist doctrines onto a democratic government, or onto women who are not members of their congregations. They should preach their doctrines within the limits and boundaries of their specific congregations. We as women are not to open our wardrobes. People outside this Constitutional Assembly are singing "Tsiki tsiki yho"[Applause.]

Mr A WATSON: Mr Chairperson, a while ago a senior member from that side of the House accused members of the NP of ranting and raving. All I can say is that, like in so many other things, they learn very fast. The last speaker was no exception. [Interjections.] I am sure that even those who understand all the languages that she speaks could not hear her for all her ranting and raving. [Interjections.]

At this point, may I also say how amazed I am that she, like so many other speakers today, assumed that the NP will vote against this constitution. I do not know what they have been privy to-whether they have been in the inner circles so that they know things that the others around them do not know-but they should stick to their own party and their own party's decisions. [Interjections.] The previous speaker, who accused Mr De Klerk and the NP of so many evils, must remember that history goes on.

[Do not lie about people. Madam. Listen, I am saying do not lie about people. Who changed these laws that you are complaining about? Who is he? Because it is Mr F W de Klerk, and he is the one who changed those laws.]

It was indeed a privilege to have been able to participate in the last two years' history-writing. I am also privileged to be able to make my humble contribution today. I would have liked to focus on all the aspects in which I was involved, but since our time is limited, I will simply focus my attention briefly on the issue of local government.

At this point I would also like to express my surprise at the many contributions the hon Mr Groenewald is supposed to have made in all the meetings he attended when I and the others were not there. It seems to me they have come here to tell the people what they did, but when things have to be done they do nothing at all.

Much has been said about the achievements of local government. It has now been recognised as distinct sphere of government, and a full partner at the third and local level, where it matters most. The advent of so-called wall-to-wall local government now makes it possible for the third level of government to participate fully in this regard, and for all people at grass-roots level to exercise their right to govern themselves where it matters most, ie close to home.

However, in this regard there was full concurrence at all times. We are also happy that in line with true democracy, the right of all the parties and independent interests within the council to participate fully in all committees, as well as in cross-representation, has been enshrined in the constitution. What amazed all of us, however, was the initial reluctance on the part of the ANC to acknowledge and agree to this democratic principle, but we are pleased that an agreement could be reached at the very last minute.

The NP is constantly being accused of attempting to entrench elements of apartheid, but the truth is that it is the ANC that is constantly guilty of attempting to eliminate all minorities, clearly because of its dream of having a one-party state. However, negotiations have once again proven that such a dream is only pie in the sky.

We of the NP will never neglect our duty to minorities, and if this constitution is accepted, the ANC can rest assured that their rights as a minority party in the future, when we once again take over the government, will still be protected. [Interjections.] My colleague and principal negotiator on local government, Jaco Maree, will elaborate on the question of the rights of ratepayers.

However, I must react to the views expressed by Mr Mohammed Bhabha. Listening to him speak, we must assume that he regards the previously disenfranchised as people who will never ever be in a position of economic prosperity. He now dooms them to perpetual poverty. We do not agree. We think that they also have that right. [Time expired.]

Ms M P COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, hon members, today I feel very proud to stand at this podium; proud because I am a woman and proud because I am a South African-not a "Hotnot", a Bushman, a Coloured or a Brown person. For the first time in my humanness as an Afrikaans-speaking South African we have drawn up a constitution which gives equal recognition to all languages in South Africa. Whether one is a Sotho, Xhosa, English, Jewish, Zulu, Tswana, Venda, Ndebele or Khoi-speaking Afrikaner, one remains an Afrikaner because in English there is no such word as Afrikaner-only African. We as South Africans are acceptable and recognisable abroad as one nation. White, black, purple, yellow, green or brown: It does not matter what language one speaks if one was born as a South African and grew up on this soil.

The language question is a thorn in the side of the NP, DP and FF because in clauses 1, 2, 6 and 30 the constitution provides for all of South Africa's languages. As the NP would like to see Afrikaans elevated above other languages, they favour the notion of a mother tongue. Every language originates as one's mother's knee, but Afrikaans does not. I am sorry. [Interjections.] Maria de la QueiUerie was a Khoi woman. She was a Khoi- speaking woman, whereas Jan van Riebeeck was Dutch. That is where Afrikaans originated and was then further formulated into pure Afrikaans, for a small group of people to practice apartheid with among the majority in South Africa.

Whatever became of the Griqua language, my greatgrandrnother's language, At every turn Afrikaans was forced down her throat. By making Afrikaans compulsory in Sotho, Tswana, Xhosa and other schools, those pupils had to speak three languages while the White Afrikaner child was not forced to speak any other language, except a little English. Am I not speaking the truth? [Interjections.]

I want to ask aunty Modise how many languages she knows apart from Sotho.

Ms T R MODISE: I know six!

Ms M P COETZEE: Thank you. May I ask Mr Williams how many languages he knows, apart from English and his mother tongue, Afrikaans? [Interjections.]

He knows only two. [Interjections.] The new NP professes to have changed, but their proposal is still based on a separate language policy. No matter how technically it is formulated, to the man in the street out there; it will remain an apartheid activity if we fight about language matters in this Assembly. All South Africans should have already learnt a lesson from the 1976 unrest, which was attributable to the policy of one language in South Africa.

If we cannot vote together for all languages on an equal footing, as summarised in clause 9(2) of the Bill of Rights, in which it is specified that the equality of all of South Africa's languages should be promoted, our great-great-grandchildren may one day rue the fact that in this Assembly their grandparents were divided over the question of language.

The President has christened us a rainbow nation. Let us also turn South Africans into a rainbow of languages. All languages will have to be spoken down to the local government level, because presently the Afrikaans-speaking people are re- fusing to let a Sotho-speaking person speak in his own language in the local government. Up there in Welkorn they are refusing this. [Interjections.] All languages are acceptable to us women. We communicate not only with Afrikaans-speaking women, but with people from every nation in South Africa. Long live the rainbow language! [Applause.]

Dr T J KING: Mr Chairperson, I prefer not to react to the hysterics of the previous speaker. I would like to talk about co-operative governance, a subject which is dealt with in Chapter 3, as well as about the powers of provinces. [Interjections.] A very important insertion in the new constitution...

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! May I ask colleagues to lower their voices? *Dr T J KING: An important insertion in the constitution is Chapter 3, which lays down the principles and obligations relating to co-operative governance. Government in die Republic is seen as "distinctive, interdependent and interrelated spheres of government". The principles laid down here indeed provide the glue that is intended to keep together intergovernmental relations, as well as the legal philosophical framework within which all spheres of government should function.

This therefore also directly concerns the position and functioning of provinces. It is important to note that the protection not only of the integrity of provinces, but also that of the other spheres of government in this chapter is laid down as a principle that has been derived from Constitutional Principle XXII. A provincial legislature has, as is also the case at present, the legislative power to adopt its own constitution, and to make laws regarding issues that fall in the concurrent legislative sphere and about matters that are allocated expressly by national legislation to provinces.

Apart from this, provinces have now acquired so-called exclusive legislative power over a number of matters, and certain of their legislative powers can also be allocated to municipalities in the provinces. A provincial legislature can also make a recommendation to the National Assembly for the adoption of a law regarding matters that fall outside the powers of that legislature.

When one gives consideration to the number of functional areas over which provinces have acquired legislative power, it is clear that the picture is somewhat different from what it is at present. There are now two lists containing functional areas, namely Schedule 4, in which the concurrent powers, in other words those over which Parliament as well as the provincial legislatures can legislate, are listed and Schedule 5, in which the exclusive powers of provinces have been noted. Each of these lists also contains a number of functional areas that fall within the sphere of local government.

This means that Parliament, provincial legislatures and municipalities have legislative power over certain functions. These are the concurrent powers. The provincial legislature as well as municipalities have legislative power over other functions. These are the exclusive powers. The time available does not allow me to give examples of everything that falls within these various categories, but hon members can find this in Schedules 4 and 5 of the constitution that is before them. As far as the concurrent powers are concerned, both Parliament and the provincial legislatures have the power to make laws regarding the areas that are set out in Schedule 4. In the case of conflicting laws there are a number of overrides, which are contained in clause 146, which indicate when a national law will enjoy preference. If these overrides are not complied with, the provincial law will enjoy preference.

An important addition to these provisions is that provision is now being made that national and provincial subordinate legislation can enjoy preference before the original national and provincial legislation if it has been approved by the National Council of Provinces.

The exclusive powers are not completely untouchable, as one might think they are or ought to be. Provision is being made that in certain cases Parliament will have the power to intervene. Reference is made to this in the Constitutional Principles as "intervention". This will take place when it is necessary for the maintenance of essential national standards, the determination of minimum standards, rendering of services, maintenance of economic unity and national security, and the prevention of unreasonable actions by a province that are detrimental to the interests of another province or the country as a whole.

The structure of the relationship between the various spheres of government, as far as their legislative powers are concerned, is based on certain Constitutional Principles-in particular Constitutional Principles XIX and XXI. The concept of intervention, which is also dealt with elsewhere in the constitution, is a direct result of Constitutional Principle XXI(2), in which provision has been made that in the above mentioned cases the national government may intervene in provincial matters.

It is very clear that we have negotiated a fairly unique situation here. This is something which poses a great challenge to South Africa, the people of South Africa and all the groups in the Government-viz those who form part of the Government as well as the opposition. Although we have brought about this very unique situation, which could probably be copied by many other countries, its ultimate success lies in the hands of the people. This is in the hands of those who comprise the Government, as well as those with the responsibility who, as the opposition, should ensure that the Government gives effect to its mandate. This can only be done if it is done in good faith. Therefore I want to say at this stage that what we have achieved as far as the powers of the three spheres of government are concerned is something of which to be proud. This is some- thing which will provide us with direction for the future. However, I appeal that this will take place with the necessary responsibility on the part of everyone who will be involved in doing this.

Mr S M RASMENI: Mr Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly, hon members and the public at large, I salute you. It is a well-known fact that South Africa has been a theatre of human rights abuse. It is not accidental that the international community had to declare apartheid a crime against humanity.

In a country with the kind of history that ours has, the constitution-making process could not be as easy as most of us would want it to be. It is within this process of constitution-making that various parties with different backgrounds would like to put forward their different views so as to influence the laws of the country. Most of these contestants put their ideologies first and the citizens of this country second. It was against this background that our constitution-making process faced its ups and downs. We should be grateful for our Constitutional Assembly, which made a miracle happen by reconciling the irreconcilable interests of the privileged and the underprivileged classes of South Africa.

The new constitution is, in essence, restoring the dignity that was taken away from the vast majority of South Africans by apartheid. For the first time ever, all citizens of South Africa will be protected by the laws of their country.

In the past, the vast majority of South Africans were never afforded an opportunity to participate in the constitution-making process. Our predecessors expected the majority of our citizens to obey the laws which had no regard for their interests. We need to state here, loudly and clearly, that it will not be business as usual. Our political opponents have to accept that gone are the days when people were detained indefinitely without trial. Gone are the days when the innocent lives of those who were opposed to the system of apartheid-including women and children-were brutally taken by the State. We welcome the provision under the new constitution which says: "Everyone has the right to life."

It is not surprising, therefore, that there is this major resistance from those who benefited in the past, especially when it comes to key areas such as the property clause, education and the right to strike, which are about the betterment of the lives of our people. No well-off class under the sun will ever agree to take some of its wealth and then give it to the poor. It becomes worse still for those who gained that wealth by unjust laws. Typical of them is that they will tend to be protective of the status quo.

The same applies to the apostles of apartheid who will always want to marry ideology to education, as they did in the past. All those who are opposed to the system of apartheid in all its manifestations should once more reject a system within the system of education which will promote discrimination on the basis of language and culture. In the same breath we should avoid entrenching a process in our new constitution that begins to deny or to contradict the basic principle of the RDP. The property clause, if taken as our opponents want it to be, will restrict all attempts by the RDP to make sure that land is available so as to build houses for millions of our people who have no roof over their heads.

We dare not forget that the writing of this new constitution is the result of the culmination of the tireless struggles of our people. History will not forgive us if we forget the valuable contributions made by distinguished leaders such as Comrade 0 R Tambo, Chris Hani, Joe Slovo, Harry Gwala and many of our comrades who selflessly fought for the attainment of freedom in South Africa.

It would be a denial of fact if we did not acknowledge the support we had from the progressive forces internationally. With the support of countries such as the former Soviet Union, Cuba and our neighbours within the African continent, we were able to usher in the new democratic order with this new constitution which emphasises the need to respect human rights. We are pleased to see all South Africans of goodwill joining hands to bring about this new constitution. Those who have nothing to offer have decided to run away from the constitution- making process. It is a well-known fact that it is easier to destroy than to build. We would like to take this opportunity to invite them once more to build this country, and not to destroy it. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! In terms of the resolution adopted yesterday, the Assembly will now suspend business to enable the Constitutional Committee to meet. Members are re- quested to be at the Senate steps opposite the Marks Building at 15:00 for the taking of the Constitutional Assembly photograph. The Assembly will reconvene at 15:30.

Business suspended at 11:58 and resumed at 17:30.

Afternoon Sitting

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! We have a slight difficulty in that we were supposed to have had a Constitutional Committee meeting and were to have tabled a report of that meeting at this session. As many hon members are aware, that meeting did not take place, because the process of consultation and networking was still in progress.

I am now suggesting, with the support of Mr Ramaphosa, that those members who are affected by the three major outstanding matters which were supposed to have been dealt with in the Constitutional Committee meeting, and whose names are on the speakers' list, should simply not use their option to speak. I will hold their names in abeyance and we will give them an opportunity to speak later, because I foresee that when we have the report ready, the Constitutional Committee may have to meet, preferably not concurrently with the Constitutional Assembly, but hopefully only for a short period. We will therefore proceed on an informal basis as we have in our past Constitutional Assembly meetings.

Rev M A STOFILE: Mr Chairperson, taking part in this historic debate evokes a lot of mixed feelings in some of us. On the one hand it evokes a sense of pride and triumph at the work that has been done and achieved. The sweat of many hours, days and months has produced what we hope will be a very useful compass for our people and our Government. As the Deputy Minister of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development, Mr Valli Moosa, put it yesterday, it will benefit posterity for many generations to come.

On the other hand the debate evokes a sense of sadness that South Africa has had to wait for so long and our people have had to suffer so much agony at the hands of so few. Indeed, it evokes a sense of regret that worthier sons and daughters of South Africa cannot stand where we stand, benefiting from the fruits of their sacrifices. As was said yesterday and has been repeated today, never again should our country be a victim of apartheid.

No country in the whole world has produced a perfect constitution. We are not purporting to do the impossible today. However, we have reason to believe that, being the last amongst the countries of the world to achieve liberation, our constitution will be a better document than many others that other countries have produced. In fact, I dare say that the whole world is waiting in great expectation for South Africa to produce a constitution that will enrich theirs as well. There is a sense, therefore, in which we are latecomers to as well as pioneers of democracy.

Previous regimes were not only illegitimate, but also wanting in the sphere of human rights. For decades they agonised about it and mentioned it for specific South African communities. In the end, true to their real colours, they voted against such a clause when the crunch came and it was to be entrenched in the constitution. It is therefore with a sense of triumph that we will support a constitution which entrenches once more such rights of our people.

This is so precisely because of the rooting of this constitution in the re-establishment of a sense of morality and respect for human life which was destroyed by neofascism and apartheid. As such we are re-establishing a sense of the entitlement of all, without discrimination on whatever basis, to a set of fundamental human rights, justice and equality, which are concepts which must not only be mouthed, but be concretised in respect of human dignity.

Because the last statement is correct, we cannot just end at eulogising our entrenching of a human rights clause in the constitution, nor can we just stop at merely creating structures that restrict the Government, for example the Human Rights Commission, the Public Protector and other similar structures. All human rights, in our view, are social rights. They have a human face and an economic one.

Having entrenched these rights in the constitution we have to provide a means to perform their attendant duties. Inequalities of different communities have to be eradicated. Equality of all before the law must be a reality. For that reason we can no longer tolerate a situation in which, in some provinces of this country, such as KwaZulu-Natal, carnage is perpetrated without a whisper from this august Chamber, and indeed without a whimper from the world community. This is a sad situation and a dangerous threat to the embryonic democracy which we are trying to bring forth in our country.

All people must enjoy security and freedom, the freedom to vote and to be voted for, and all must be equal before the law. For that reason it is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated that whilst we are producing an august document such as this one, we have individuals who want to put themselves above the law. Nor can one tolerate, as a moral obligation on the part of the leadership of the people, their leaving a process as important as this one and abdicating their responsibility which their own constituency has placed upon them.

It is with great pride that we support this effort of sowing the seed for the production of the rights of women, children, workers and all, but it is with equal sadness that we do so with a lot of empty benches in this Chamber which belong to people who have the mandate to be here with us but who have chosen to sit outside this Chamber, neglecting that mandate, indeed neglecting the task of assisting in the transformation of the people of this country.

We must establish social, cultural and economic prosperity for all, and thereby establish peace in our country. We should treat poverty and want as evils. This is what would address all the other problems such as the high rate of crime and the corrosion of human rights. It would, in my view, be a more fitting monument for posterity that we have, in fact, been here at this point in our history and that indeed we have discharged our responsibility with equity.

Ms M SMUTS: Mr Chairperson, as we approach the end of the second and final stage of the constitution-making process, which has dominated our lives for some years now, it is appropriate tov stand back and compare the interim Constitution's Chapter 3 and the Bill of Rights which is finally taking shape in the proposed final constitution. The Bill of Rights has, in certain significant respects, been amplified. I cite only the most marked amplifications. The first is that of application. The uncertainty about the vertical versus the horizontal application of the rights, which caused the interim Constitution to lean like the Tower of Pisa, has been removed.

The infusion of our common law with the values enshrined in the Bill of Rights is made certain by binding the judiciary, as this final Bill does. Once this step is taken, private relations are necessarily involved, and this Bill of Rights takes some brave and ground-breaking steps along the logical path of horizontality.

Other notable areas of amplification include the right of access to information and to administrative justice. The right to information held by the State is now without qualification, save for a proviso that the legislation giving effect to the right may observe administrative burden and cost.

The right to administrative action which is not only lawful and procedurally fair, but also reasonable, is a very great advance on the previous position in our law, and it is one of the best safeguards, in this Bill, against the growing bureaucratic power of the State, a worldwide phenomenon, but one of which we in South Africa have had particularly bitter experience.

The most obvious amplification lies in the inclusion of the socio-economic rights. The DP sup- ports, as a matter of party policy and principle, the inclusion of an obligation on the State to secure, for its people, the means of survival. We think that these provisions could have been more tersely framed, and we wished them to say, in so many words, that these rights are not enforceable. The rights of access to housing, health care, food, water and social security are perhaps overgenerous. However, we support their general inclusion.

This brings me to those areas in which this Bill has not amplified, but is in the process of shrinking, the rights in Chapter 3 of the interim Constitution. It is significant, it is deeply disturbing, that the goose that lays the golden egg with which the socio-economic rights must be financed has been under concerted attack during the drafting of this Bill. I am referring to labour and property. I am referring to our economy and our country's prosperity or otherwise. Firstly, the rights of employers are being eroded. I take this opportunity to remind hon members of Constitutional Principle XXVIII, which reads as follows:

The right of employers and employees to join and form employer organisations and trade unions and to engage in collective bargaining shall be recognised and protected.

Employer and employee rights, not the centralised bargaining which we are on the point of constitutionalising, must be recognised and protected, yet action pursuant to the right to collective bargaining, the lockout in the case of employers, is now, as things stand at this moment, to be contained only in a reference to the Labour Relations Act which may be repealed or amended by this same Parliament. That is no constitutional, positive right. [Interjections.] It is not, and as for the reference to consultation with the Forum for Centralised Bargaining, that means nothing. The constitutional principle has to be given effect to. It is our solemn duty to give effect to it, and as things stand at this moment, that is not happening.

I now come to property rights. Property rights are in. the process of being eroded. The interim Constitution's Chapter 3 got it right. It established the eligibility to hold property, so long denied to most South Africans under apartheid. It created certainty about the circumstances regulating deprivation and expropriation, without which our economy cannot grow. Our economy cannot grow without certainty, [interjections.] Socio-economic rights cannot be given effect to without growth. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Can I just say that I appreciate the enthusiasm, but this is not a shouting match.

Ms M SMUTS: Mr Chairperson, thank you.

The new provision is not a good one, with or without late improvements.

Let me say please-and with great solemnity again-that the erosion of rights is a dangerous thing. In a famous case in 1970, when the Indian government made an attempt to nationalise 14 major commercial banks, the judge made the following remark. He remarked that the erosion of one right in the constitution must inevitably erode the whole constitution. Let us think deeply about this matter.

Let us also, just for a minute, trace the history of subclause 8, in which the debate and the negotiations have become trapped. Subclause 8 only came about in October, after this body, through the Theme Committee 4 process, had agreed on a property clause closely resembling the one in the interim Constitution. At that point the land lobby entered the process, and the idea was mooted of a subclause which would override everything which went before in the property clause.

The problem is that this does not override only the expropriation provisions, but also constitutionalism. If any measure aimed at land reform is not subject to the constitution, this means plainly and simply that the Government can do anything it likes in terms of that provision. It is dangerous.

Now an improvement has been attached to subclause 8. It is now stipulated that any law or measure has to be reasonable and justifiable. But this is not safe. It does not guarantee just and equitable expropriation. What is it doing there at all? Subclause 8 ought not to be there if one is serious about dealing with deprivation and expropriation in terms of clauses 2 and 3. What is this game, and why is negotiation trapped in that subclause?

Mr Chairperson, we sound a retreat from the interim Constitution on these two matters amid the rout of the rand. What are we doing? We are sounding a retreat on economic rights amid the rout of the rand.

There is one final matter, beyond the strict economic sphere, and that is the limitations clause. Again, a clear retreat from the interim Constitution, it sends a message to the courts that all of the rights may now be more freely infringed by the Government. The interim Constitution predecided which rights carried the reasonability and which the necessity test. The only difference now, by including a reference to "when the nature of the right warrants it necessary," would be that the courts will decide which rights deserve the necessity test, in which circumstances.

Two worrying trends have emerged from negotiations on the Bill of Rights. Firstly, a certain govemment-mindedness has entered the thinking of ANC members, and secondly-I come back to the economic rights-the inability of the ANC as a government to deal firmly with its own lobbies and allies has become a matter of deep concern within this Place and outside. South Africa cannot prosper if it is held hostage by Cosatu and the land lobbies. [Interjections.]

Mr A M OMAR: Mr Chairperson, now is the time...

HON MEMBERS: To vote ANC!

Mr A M OMAR: I am sorry; I was going to say "to adopt a new constitution". [Laughter.] Now is the time to adopt. . .

HON MEMBERS: A new constitution!

Mr A M OMAR: . . . a constitution which is made in the interests of all the people of our country. That is what we have come to do. What our people expect, is that we shall have a constitution which will allow us to break from the past.

It will be easy if those parties that are obstructing a settlement stop their obstruction. Breaking from the past means that we must break from a past in which there was abitrary rule and replace that abitrary rule with the rule of law.

Our people-those who never had the vote in our country, those who have been marginalised over the years and those who have been disempowered—have been subjected to arbitrary rule for too long. The establishment of the rule of law will end arbitrary rule once and for all in our land. The new constitution must ensure that we establish the rule of law. I stress this, because the people on my left do not know anything about the rule of law. [Interjections.] Therefore those who have suffered under their rule must teach them what the rule of law means.

Secondly, our people have suffered insecurity for too long, also because of their rule. This has meant that our people never enjoyed the individual liberties, freedoms and security which exist in all civilised countries. This constitution provides that kind of security for our people, and in providing that security for those who have been oppressed and exploited over the years, we will be providing the same security for those on our left, who do not deserve it. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, because of apartheid policies in our country, millions of our people have been marginalised and disempowered. They have been marginalised politically, socially and economically. This constitution must lay the basis for ending that marginalisation. It must begin to empower our people in order to enable them to be recognised as citizens in the country of their birth, enjoying social and economic rights like everyone else in our country.

It is very significant that the issues on which we have been deadlocked hold a tremendous lesson for us. This is an education for us. I am hopeful that the whole country knows what the line-up has been on the question of these deadlocks. I have heard the speaker from the DP here before me speak arrogantly about the Bill of Rights and the erosion of the Bill of Rights. Who does the DP represent? [Interjections.] If one wants to know who the DP represents, one should look at what the standpoint of the DP has been in respect of these deadlocks. [Interjections.] They have not spoken for the propertyless people, they have not cared about the landless people of our country . . . [Interjections.] ... they do not speak for the workers of this country, and they do not speak for the unemployed. They speak for big capital, whose interests they are trying to protect. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

When one looks at what their attitude has been to the lockout clause and to the property clause, and when one looks at what their attitude has been to many of these issues in the constitution and the Bill of Rights, there has been only one concern, and that is protecting the privileges which were built up during the apartheid years. [Interjections.] I must say that at least the NP has been prepared to talk about it. However, if one looks at the DP's standpoint, one sees that it has been the champion of apartheid privilege in our country. [Applause.]

I am very happy that, for the first time in the history of our country, we are going to have a Bill of Rights which entrenches the individual liberties of all our people, which guarantees our people that there will be no arbitrary rule and which guarantees that there will be no rule by decree. It entrenches a multiparty system, the right of all parties to exist, the right of people to belong to the party of their choice, and it guarantees regular elections in our country. Those are achievements in our country of which we, who fought for democracy, can be proud.

Secondly, we have a Bill of Rights which, in addition to entrenching those individual liberties, addresses the concerns of the disempowered people of our country. That is why we have provisions which relate to social and economic rights. Those are the things that the DP speaker has been complaining of. They complain that the State has been given too much power. They complain that instead of disempowering the State, weakening the State as against the individual citizen, we are giving the State too much power.

In our country, with the massive inequalities which we have, we need a democratic state. We need majority rule so that our people may enjoy democratic decision-making for the first time in their history. That democratic state needs to have the right to intervene in a way which will address the inequalities in our country. Far from complaining about the democratic state being given the kind of powers which this constitution gives it, we should hail it as an attempt to empower our people.

The DP speaker has said nothing about the very powerful private interests which exist in our country. What the DP wants to do is to insulate those monopoly interests against everyone else so that nobody may interfere with private power and those powerful interests. We must not allow that to happen. We need to ensure that a democratic state will be able to move in a way which will empower those who were formerly disempowered. We cannot have a situation in which this constitution is going to entrench privileges as the DP, in particular, wants to do.

We need to ensure that, in addition to adopting a beautiful constitution, we take that constitution to our people. Our people must understand what rights they have in terms of this constitution, because if they do not understand what rights they have they will not be able to exercise those rights, and in a country where more than half of" our people are illiterate-unable to read or write- that constitution and those rights are going to be inaccessible.

A great duty therefore rests upon us, those who really believe in democracy, to take that constitution to our people and to implement measures to ensure that our people understand their rights. We need education. We need to educate ourselves, but we also need to ensure that that education filters through to every single citizen of our country. If, as a result of understanding what their rights are, our people are able to decide what they want to do in respect of those rights, how they want to exercise those rights, then we would have taken the first step towards empowering our people in terms of their constitutional rights.

In addition to educating our people as to what their rights are, our people must have the capacity to exercise those rights. It is all very well to have a beautiful right on paper, ensuring that everyone has freedom of assembly, but if only the rich can book halls, print pamphlets and call meetings, those who have been disempowered over the years will still not be able to exercise that right.

So, what we need to do is to ensure that we develop a capacity amongst the disempowered so that they can exercise those rights. That is why a great duty rests upon us to ensure that democracy is not merely democracy on paper, but that it is real. [Interjections.] I hear a lot of nonsense on the side here, but those are the sort of things we can safely ignore. We can continue to democratise our country. I am quite certain that we will have to drag a lot of people by the scruff of their necks into the new democracy. [Applause.] They will be screaming and crying and moaning, but, whether they like it or not, we are going to break with the past. [Applause.]

This constitution is not going to protect the privileges of those whom they want to protect. [Applause.] Mr J W MAREE: Mr Chairperson, I intend to deal with Chapter 7, that on Local Government, but I must respond briefly to what Mr Omar has said.

The question is: Whom does he represent? [Interjections.]

I want to ask whether he is a communist. [Interjections.] Is he a communist? If he is, and I expect that he is, I say that he is a champion for State intervention I say that he is a champion of a failed system. [Interjections.] I say-that that system has failed in the sphere of human rights on which he is trying to lecture us. I say to him that he is a champion of a system that has failed economically. [Interjections.] The system that he is a champion of has killed 60 million to 80 million people in the world in an effort to establish communism.[Interjections.] It is sinful. [Interjections.] His system has failed in each and every respect. [Interjections.] However, do not let us allow ourselves to be sidetracked by the silly things mentioned Mr Omar said.

I want to say that Chapter 7 on Local Government creates a new municipal system, an independent sphere of government. Local government will probably now become the most important building block in our new democracy. It will no doubt grow into a powerful legislative and executive body.

Chapter 7 is generally sound, although provinces are given a raw deal. The constitution makes the South African municipal system a model to be copied by the rest of the world. The NP made suggestions and proposed amendments that were accepted, notably our amendment in regard to the fair representation of parties and interests on committees. Unfortunately our amendments aimed at ensuring that wards are demarcated, in accordance with certain criteria, and that ratepayers should be allowed to vote, even if they do not reside within a municipality, have been rejected. Let me say something about this.

The question is: Will municipalities work? Will this fine constitutional instrument ensure a sound and effective local-government system? The answer is that it will work if the people want it to work and if the people make it work, especially the responsible people who have a stake in sound municipal government. People will refuse to make it work if they feel neglected or marginalised.

I say, with great respect, that the ANC is guilty of creating and feeding the entitlement syndrome. [Interjections.] Yes, they are guilty of that. They are polluting our communities with wrong signals. They are placing too large an emphasis on the right of the receiver and they show little regard for the plight of the payer. That attitude permeates their decisions and their speeches. In labour matters they demand that the workers' right to strike should be protected. The employers' corresponding rights are rejected.

Yesterday Mr Bhabha told us, with a great deal of satisfaction, that owners of property who do not live in municipal areas would not have the vote in municipal elections. He is pleased with that. It is this attitude that will cause the ratepayer to feel that his or her concerns are not catered for and that his or her financial contributions are not valued. Eventually they will stop paying. The result will be that municipalities will collapse and this fine constitution, especially Chapter 7, will not be worth the paper it is written on. It is the ratepayer, irrespective of his or her race, the ordinary, honest and disciplined citizen who will finally make municipalities work. I believe that it is in this vital respect that the ANC is sending the wrong signals. For that reason the Masakhane project has also failed. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Before I call the next speaker, I just want to sensitise members about the fact that the invitations and the programmes for tomorrow morning's proceedings in the Assembly are at present being distributed and made available at the entrance. I take it that it is over there, in the foyer at the front of the building.

Dr W J BOTHA: Mr Chairperson, finance takes up little space in this Constitution and very little is being said about it in this debate. Meanwhile, this is the sphere which will determine whether all the grandiose plans that whoever has for this country in his Constitution, will be put into operation.

As an Afrikaner on his way to a volkstaat, I find myself on a journey on a road that runs through the new South Africa. It may even happen that I will be here for such a long time that I will perish in the desert like the Israelites of old before I reach the promised land. I only hope that I do not perish for the same reasons as those for which the Israelites perished.

This constitution has a lot to do with the attitude with which I will live and keep myself occupied in the country. The interim Constitution enabled me to strive for self-determination for my people in a positive and constructive manner. In exchange for that I could contribute positively and constrictively towards the extension and upliftment of the country that offered me that opportunity. The new constitution also makes this possible, except that a serious concern exists that unless the issue with regard to mother-tongue education is resolved- surely no one can blame me for this- I may justifiably fear that in a few years' time there will no people for whom to negotiate self-determination. This is an honest opinion and a genuine fear.

It is a pity that not enough time has elapsed so that everyone who still doubts whether the FF's claim to religious, linguistic and cultural rights is genuine, can be assured, and that they can realise that the FF no longer needs to be suspected of harking back to apartheid or isolation. To date I have noticed that some of the sceptics are saying to one another that perhaps these people are sincere and have no hidden agenda. Perhaps an increasing number of people are realising that the attainment of our ideals does not really constitute a threat to the country and that the result will rather be a win-win situation.

In the spirit of sincere co-operation we will use the few remaining years until the next election- whether we vote in favour of or against this constitution- to develop this country economically so that prosperity can become the destiny of an increasing number of people.

When one looks at the mere six pages making up the chapter on finance, one wonders how it was possible that so many dozens of meetings have been held and so much time has been spent on its preparation. When one, however, recognises the importance of financial matters, one can under- stand why many things, which may have such dire consequences for the future of the country and the wellbeing of its people, that look so simple and uncomplicated on paper could have taken us so long to complete.

My personal viewpoint was that certain principles had to be embodied in the text. Often the meetings were about minor details and, in particular, about exactly how to put them into words. In that process I was a silent observer as I, as Afrikaans- speaking member of the committee, could not understand why it was so difficult to formulate matters in English that it sometimes took the committee so long to do so.

The fact that the result is phrased in rather simple terms, very short and understandable, is a tribute not only to the members of the committee, but to those who decided on the final phrasing.

The South African economy is under siege, the reason being the fact that the very important portfolio of finance has at last been politicised. Although it was to be expected that it would not go down very favourably in financial circles, the reaction of the financial markets was more severe than was expected.

Unfortunate statements from political leaders did not help to ease matters, but created the impression that not everyone talking on financial matters was fine-tuned to how the financial markets work or understood the consequences of their statements. The financial markets are not positively influenced by cheap talk. There is a sophisticated audience out there in the financial world that does not weigh only the literal meaning of every word, but also the nuance with which it is spoken.

This turmoil around the value of the rand is in sharp contrast with what has happened and is happening around the finance clauses in the constitution. One can be sure that the crisis about the rand would have been aggravated if it had not been for the good sense that prevailed over the control of the Reserve Bank. Had it not been for this fact, the country could have been in deeper trouble than it is now and could surely have been written off as a place to invest any but speculative money.

It is good that the constitution allows independent operation of the Reserve Bank. Politicians' planning horizons are much shorter than is good for sound long-term financial planning. They want to reap immediate benefits for political gain. Long- term consequences of their decisions do not always receive the attention they deserve. Control over the Reserve Bank also means control over the money-printing press. The less the control politicians have over this, the better it is for inflation.

I want to say a few words on the National Revenue Fund, specifically in relation to a balanced budget. We all know what problems the dispute in Congress between the Democrats and the Republicans caused in America. It brought the state machinery to a grinding halt. Every American knows that the government cannot carry on with a large budget deficit as is the case now. The remedy for this problem, as everybody knows, is to move towards a balanced budget. The big dispute in the United States was how to move towards such a situation.

In South Africa we have a similar problem. Everybody agrees that the budget deficit is too high and must be reduced. There are plans on the table to reduce it to 3% of the GDP. The FF would like it to be taken a step further, namely a complete balance of the budget. We realise that this cannot be achieved overnight.

Our proposal was, however, not well accepted in the committee, as it could, according to arguments raised, be interpreted as subscribing to a particular economic doctrine. This was one of the rare bits of real politics that surfaced in the committee. Although this is not entrenched in the constitution, one would like to urge the Minister of Finance to make it his target to work towards a balanced budget. A statement such as that can do a lot to repair some of the damage to the economy, which may be greater after the resignation of the Director-General of Finance today. It may do a lot to repair some of that damage to the economy.

It is not necessary to reach a balanced budget overnight, nor is it necessary to make a rigid rule that we should have a balanced budget under all circumstances. [Time expired.]

Mr M E SURTY: Mr Chairperson, Ms Smuts has come to this Assembly with a dubious political agenda, hi the beginning I was quite pleased and heartened to hear her saying that we had engaged each other constructively in formulating what was perhaps one of the best bills of rights in the world. This we have achieved through a process of consultation and engagement, through a transparent process.

However, I sensed in the latter part of the speech an attempt to mislead the public, as the DP tends to do quite often, by exposing or conveying half-truths. Ms Smuts has referred to the lockout clause. She has failed to mention to this audience that in no single constitution in the world, in no international instrument, is there a confirmed right to lock-out. She has misled us into believing that this is a constitutional right when in fact it is nothing more than a defensive mechanism which is provided to employers under specific circumstances.

She has also failed to convey to this Assembly that the right which is set out in clause 23 is a balanced and well-structured right which confers rights not only on employees, but also on employers. It also sets out very clearly that there is opportunity to engage in collective bargaining. This, however, does not come out at all in her utterances here. Her only concern is to appeal to an audience or a sector whose brief she carries when she comes to this Parliament, to tell them that her party is expressing their concerns vociferously, but with- out conveying to that sector that it should look once more at this particular clause. It is a balanced, comprehensive and fair clause. After all, the labour relations clause commences as follows: "Everyone has the right to fair labour practices". Does that not include the employer as well as the employee?

Furthermore, Ms Smuts has failed to convey to this audience the fact that employers and employees are not engaging with each other on an equal level. The power is always tilled in favour of capital when such an engagement takes place. This disparity in the relationship between capital and the employees is, in fact, specifically why the lockout clause has to be excluded as a constitutional right which does not exist anywhere in any event.

Thirdly, she has forgotten the history of the struggle of our people who were subjected perennially and perpetually to all types of exploitation. This ignorance, or pretended ignorance, of the dismal history of our people shows clearly the arrogance and contempt of the DP for the masses of our people who have engaged with their toil and sweat in the development of this country. [Applause.]

I was going to address hon members on human dignity as for equality that is necessary. In the process of developing a bill of rights, may I mention that this nation can be very proud that at the centre of this constitution, at the heart of the Bill of Rights, lies the notion of human dignity. In its opening statement the constitution affirms the values of human dignity, equality and freedom.; In its opening statement the Bill of Rights again, as the constitution does in its founding principles, reflects that democracy is underpinned by these very values.

What have we achieved as a committee and a Constitutional Assembly in developing and expanding this notion of human dignity? We have expanded it to the extent that human dignity is recognised not only as a right, but as a right which has to-be respected and protected. This means that the State now has a duty to develop legislation to protect those people who were subjected to racial abuse and humiliation, who were called "kaffirs" and "coolies" in the past, against this violation of their human dignity.

What more have we done to enrich this concept of human dignity? We have expanded this notion into the arena of social and economic rights. Strangely, this has been the reservation of both the DP and the NP, but particularly of the DP. We believe that there can be no human dignity unless there is enrichment of the quality of human life, and people have access to land, homes, social welfare, pensions, food and water. That means that this Constitutional Assembly has gone out positively in inspiring the notion of human dignity with the content that it deserves. Previously, we had human dignity merely as an abstract and vacuous concept with no substantive content whatsoever.

A further development in the Bill of Rights relating to dignity which straddles every right in the constitution, is the fact that in the previous Constitution we had two values, namely the value of freedom and the value of equality, and these two values were juxtaposed as adversaries. When we had to determine what a democracy was, we had to decide whether freedom would override equality or equality would overide freedom. We have now placed this in its proper perspective. We have ensured that human dignity stands as a partner with freedom and equality, and that the values that inspire this nation and this democracy will be the values of human dignity, equality and a full range of freedoms as set out in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps I should also revert to an important matter that was raised yesterday. This is quite mysteriously being raised by various NP speakers from time to time. Mr Geldenhuys stated that the Afrikaners, too, could be regarded as freedom fighters who fought for their liberation. My response to him is an absolute No! I say this because, in every conflict and in every struggle, the person that is oppressed seeks to affirm something that is in common with every other human being. He seeks to affirm the human dignity that is common to other people. What have the Afrikaners done with their victory? They have ensured that they raised the quality of life of only a sector of this nation and that they transgressed and violated every other right to human dignity of this nation. [Applause.] Certainly they cannot-and they have no right whatsoever to do so-come to this podium and state that they were engaged in the struggle as freedom fighters.

We have also heard Senator Ackennann staling that they have already-look at the arrogance, the condescension-crossed the Red Sea, which means that God has already favoured them as His people. He has taken them across the Red Sea, but ANC beware, you may be swallowed by the Red Sea. What is the suggestion here? Is it that those chosen people are already on the other side, and that is why they have to cling to their property clauses and to the labour rights, since they feel there may be an impingement on their privileges of the past? Is that what they are saying? They should rather say, thankfully, that they are crossing through the Red Sea and the ANC is taking them along, so that they can aspire to freedom and equality and, for the first time, achieve human dignity. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! I would just like to make a further announcement. We will not be suspending business for dinner, but dinner will be available as from 18:30.1 would like to ask hon members not all to leave at the same time but perhaps, by arrangement with their Whips, to go in groups.

Rev K R MESHOE: Mr Chairperson, the Constitutional Assembly had two years to negotiate a final constitution that was supposed to be legitimate, credible and accepted by all South Africans. A number of scheduled meetings were cancelled because there was no sense of urgency. More meetings were cancelled in March and April this year than during the rest of last year.

Important decisions were made in the early hours of the morning instead of during normal working hours. Breaking up the Constitutional Committee into subcommittees that met concurrently was good strategy by those who wanted to sideline smaller parties.

If the objections raised by the ACDP are not considered favourably then this constitution will become a source of ongoing friction, resentment and mobilisation of committed Christians whose values, principles and beliefs are being threatened. It will become, not a tool of reconciliation and protection, but a weapon that will strengthen the divisions in the South African fabric which this constitution could have effectively harmonised.

We as the ACDP still argue that biblical laws, which brought liberty and prosperity to millions of Christian in many nations over many centuries, cannot be subjected to a constitution that was drafted by mortal and fallible men and women within a period of two years.

Peace and prosperity in a country are dependent on God's merciful blessings. Amorally unacceptable constitution, such as the one we now have, which undermines God's law, will result in His judgement. The ACDP wants God's blessing for this nation and not His judgment. That is why we are concerned about, and indeed insistent on, giving God the honour due to Him. It is not enough to conclude the preamble with: "Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika. Morena boloka setjhaba sa heso." If we ask for His blessing and protection then we must be willing to submit to His laws instead of challenging them.

The ACDP will accept and promote the supremacy of a constitution that does not undermine biblical law. We do not question the relevance of the Bible that addresses moral, social, economic and all other bread-and-butter issues. We believe that the Word of the Lord is right and true, as stated in Psalm 33:4. Therefore any law or constitution that is against the Word of the Lord is not right or true. In order for a constitution to be right and true it must be in harmony with the Word of the Lord.

We have consistently pointed out in our speeches and submissions that this document can never be said to contain the elements of acceptability and inclusivity that it must inevitably have in order to claim legitimacy with all the South African people. But do not take my word for it. Test this document against the will of the people. Hon members can then see for themselves.

As the ACDP we believe that the time has come to recognise that we, all of us, are merely here to represent those outside this Chamber. Therefore our political future, job security and the like should not be allowed to interfere with our civic duty first and foremost to serve the people of South Africa.

The choice is clear. If we want the South African public to really have a say, we must have a referendum on the unpopular and unwanted clauses in this constitution. We support the call for a referendum on all moral issues, especially those ones which have so easily been made the subject of compromise in these rooms over the past weeks.

One question remains when everything has been said and done. Do hon members have the guts to let the public approve or dismiss the work done over the past months? The structures going up outside this House seem to answer this question in the negative.

During the only multilateral meeting that all parties had on the preamble, the ANC, through their spokesperson, reiterated their intention of creating a secular state. Their spokesperson went on to say that they want to separate state and religion. The ACDP agrees with the separation of church and state, but not with the separation of state and religion, which includes morality. The idea that it is possible to have a religiously neutral state is erroneous. All laws are based on moral values which in turn are derived from a moral source.

Since different religions and secular belief systems have conflicting ideas, a religiously neutral state is impossible. Christianity, with which the overwhelming majority of South Africans align themselves, is tolerant of other religions and thus there is no need to adopt a policy of secularism that does not guarantee the rights of people to worship as they choose.

We believe in freedom of religion because it is a biblical principle and not a policy of secularism. May the good Lord bless all hon members as they endeavour to make the right decision. (Interjections] Thank you. May He bless all hon members as they endeavour to make the right decisions which will bring true liberty, justice, lasting peace and prosperity for all the people of South Africa.

Mr M W MFEBE: Mr Chairperson, hon Constitutional Assembly members, 41 years ago the biggest and most representative gathering took place in this country in Kliptown on 26 June 1955 at the Congress of the People. This gathering, by adopting the Freedom Charter, gave birth to a vision- of a new constitutional order in South Africa. It was a vision in which South Africa belonged to all who live in it, free of racism, and a vision of a South Africa in which, among other things, people enjoyed equal human rights. We have now arrived at a point at which we must celebrate, because it was at Kliptown that we erected the signpost that directed this country in the direction in which it should be going. Today we are finalising the constitution and preparing to adopt it tomorrow.

Of course all South Africans have been bricklayers in this process of building this new house called the new constitution. Some of us have blistered our hands in the process of bricklaying. However, there are those who have chosen to be armchair critics on the margins of the process of building so supreme and fundamental a law for the country. These people are the political arsonists who are ready to destroy this house which we built with our blood, sweat and tears. These people have no place in the new democratic dispensation that we are bringing about.

We need to realise that we have come a long way. We have suffered, and some of us have died. Some of the people who fought for the new constitution and for democracy in this country have laid down their lives. The likes of Chris Hani are not here today. Oliver Tambo is not here today, like many others. The Solomon Mahlangus are not here today to witness this important and historic moment in which we are ready to usher in a new constitution in this country. But I believe that tomorrow all of us will be able to adopt this constitution, unless there are some who are prepared to go down in the dustbin of history as spoilers and destroyers. All of us should be ready to adopt this constitution.

I stand here in full support of this constitution, and look at the Bill of Rights and ask: Who am I? I am a representative of the 12 million people who voted for the ANC out of the 18 million people in this country who voted. [Applause.] That is significant. Those people entrusted us with drafting this constitution.

Therefore we as the ANC have no reason to be apologetic. Through the Bill of Rights, for ex- ample, we are responding directly to the imbalances, inequalities and injustices that were care- fully orchestrated by the apartheid masters through a most abominable and inhumane policy of apartheid.

Therefore, we are not apologetic when we look at the Bill of Rights. We look at it as an instrument for the extension rather than the restriction of rights and democracy. We know-even the hon Mr Tony Leon would agree with me –that his historical and traditional objective of the Bill of Rights has been to remedy the unhealthy power relations between the people who are governing and those who are being governed. Therefore, if one looks, for example, at the way in which we have come up with this, we are not looking only at remedying the power relations between the State and its citizens but other sources of power, including employers and big corporations which own and govern the work-place. Therefore, they cannot have enormous power as they govern the workplace and think that those over whom they are governing should be relegated to beggars who are always begging at the locked gates of their masters. We have to rectify and recognise the historical context in which this Bill of Rights has evolved.

If we look at the "Magna Carta", the United States' Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, we see they were written by the oppressed people, not by the oppressors. In South Africa we have set an example for the rest of the world in that we have sat down with our former oppressors and worked out a new constitution for this country, and we should be grateful for that. For example, people think that the Bill of Rights should be used as an instrument of change.

The NP cannot do that. It claims that it is the new NP, whereas its newness is just like a snake's. Each and every snake at a certain time sheds its skin, but it remains a snake, even though one can call it a new snake. [Applause.] Although the NP is the "new" NP it remains the snake that we know it was before. It is restricting change.

There is no reason for it not to allow the extension of property rights to other people. We have been fair in that we have agreed to guarantee fairness in the event that property is taken. The NP is not satisfied with that. It wants entrenched property rights so as to block change and the redistribution of resources in this country, but it cannot have - that. If it is prepared to fight for this, the battlefield - is a referendum. [Applause.] If it is prepared to go - there, we are ready to go there too. However, it will be to the benefit of the NP to be constructive citizens of this country who will go on record in history as the makers and builders of the new constitution with its values of human dignity, democracy and peace. They ought to stand up and be counted.

Another question that I would like to tackle is the question of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural , Religious and Linguistic Communities. Some may think that this is dating back to the group areas days, but they are mistaken. In fact, it is a victory for our people to have such a commission, because it is our cultures, our religion and our languages that were relegated to the dustbin during the dark days of apartheid.

We declared in the Freedom Charter: "All national groups shall have equal rights". We also envisaged a situation in which everyone would exercise his or her own cultural rights and customs, and that is the situation we have reached. Therefore, we are dealing with a situation. Those hon members did not put this in. It is a recognition of what we said a long time ago, in 1955. Therefore, this should be looked at as an extension, as a richer concept in terms of which rights are not restricted to defend individual rights, but extended to the community as a whole, and that also is a victory to the ANC.

They should be thankful for that. If they think that they will have their own group areas, however, they are mistaken, because the objects of that commission, amongst others, are to promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among cultural, religious and linguistic communities. The overriding principle is that of equality. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr D PA SCHUTTE: Mr Chairperson, we have seen and heard many emotionally charged speeches in the past day, and there is certainly a place for emotions after such a long constitution- writing process, and after the very late hours we have kept and the hard work of the past few days and weeks.

However, at this late stage I believe that it is also important that we should reflect coolly and calmly on the requirements of a successful constitution. In this regard, I would submit that for a constitution to be successful, it should be a unifying instrument. It should belong to and be supported by all the people of this country. It should be seen as an instrument aspiring to meet the needs not only of certain groups, but of all groups. If it does not, it will be seen to be a divisive instrument, and not a unifying one.

Secondly, we should aspire to write a constitution which can provide the foundation to make South Africa a winning nation. In this regard we are not an island: The provisions of our constitution will be closely scrutinised to see whether they will encourage growth and stability, or whether they will create uncertainty in the long term.

This has been the commitment of the NP all along- to negotiate a document that is reasonable, that meets the needs of all the people of South Africa and that is also a foundation stone for a successful and winning nation. I believe that we are very close to such an historic compromise, and my prayer is that we will reach it today.

Except for the two qualifications which I will deal with, we can with great enthusiasm support Chapter 8, which deals with the courts and the administration of justice. This is a very important chapter, because it is essential that the courts and the judiciary protect the individual and groups against the excesses of the State. It is therefore of crucial importance that the courts and the judiciary should be, and should be perceived to be, independent. That principle has been enshrined in the constitution. Clause 165 clearly states that the courts are independent, arc subject only to the constitution and the law, and that the law must be applied impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.

The constitution also makes it clear that the organs of State should actually ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of the courts. I do not think that this could have been placed on a better basis in any constitution. It is indeed a pity that our reservations regarding the appointment of the Constitutional Court judges and the prosecuting authority remain. Time will tell whether our concerns had merit or not Let us hope that they will be shown to have been unfounded.

In the final analysis a constitution is only a guiding document. The spirit in which it is implemented and used is crucial. That will detemine in the final analysis whether the Constitutional Court and the prosecuting authority have credibility in all respects.

Mr DJ DALLING: Mr Chairperson I would like to commence by saying something about "process". In my quite long experience in South African politics, I have never witnessed the birth of a document such as we have before us today pursuant to so thorough and comprehensive process of consultation, of consensus-seeking, of discussion and of give and take.

We have experienced this from the very early days of post-April 1994 when the Constitutional Committee and its management committee were set up, progressing through the months of study and the formulation in the theme committees, the outreach to our people outside this House, the massive task of reading, classifying and evaluating literally millions of inputs, and then on to the multilateral discussions, the bilaterals which are continuing even as we debate here this evening, and the caucuses in the plenary debates in the Constitutional Assembly.

All this has ensured, for the first time in the long history of our country, that the constitution, as near as it is possible for it to be, will be a constitution for the people, of the people and by the people.

In 1983, when the discredited tricameral constitution was created, the select committee charged with the task of producing it heard evidence from a smattering of academics an selected other people, and then proceeded immediately to closed-door deliberations. If my memory serves me correctly, our present Deputy Speaker, Dr Bhadra Ranchod, presented a paper to that committee. I was astounded when, a few days after the last representation had been heard. Minister Chris Heunis slapped on the table a full draft constitution which had no resemblance whatsoever to anything which had been said to that committee in previous weeks. It had obviously been secretly drafted even before the committee had started its work.

The tricameral draft was then rammed, with indecent haste, through the committee, using the built-in NP majority which included the enthusiastic support in that committee of Mr De Klerk, Mr Kobie Coetsee and even poor old Roelfie Meyer. When this Nat document came before Parliament, the committee stage was guillotined at clause 34, leaving some 69 clauses to be bludgeoned through by majority vote, without any debate being allowed at all. That was the sum total of NP process. Words such as democracy, legitimacy, inclusivity and credibility were as yet undiscovered by our NP friends. No wonder this constitution lasted less than 12 years.

It is worthwhile comparing NP-devised process with that brought to our country by the ANC and by the Constitutional Assembly Chairperson, Mr Ramaphosa. Concepts such as universal adult suffrage and a justiciable Bill of Rights were taboo to the NP. On 16 May 1983, in the debates on the constitution of the new tricameral system, it was Mr De Klerk who said the following when he was answering Mrs Suzman: Why not one Chamber with one man, one vote. He then said: That is the recipe for chaos in South Africa. I am so grateful that he seems to have progressed somewhat since then.

The Bill of Rights, which we proposed for that constitution, Kobie Coetsee rejected, and he used these words (Hansard, 1983, col 7360):

For example, the right to participate in the legal process is so broad, that we would have to draw up an extremely long schedule. We cannot entrench everything. For example, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are matters which would cause problems for us if we were to entrench them in the constitution.

That is what he said at that time, and with that the Bill of Rights was thrown out of the window. Yet today it is the NP which wants every dot and every comma entrenched in the new Bill of Rights. One of the truest sayings is that the leopard never changes its spots.

In 1983, in the tricameral debate, Mr De Klerk said this, and I am going quote him again: "The fact is that the new constitution makes it possible to achieve two essential objectives at the same time." He was talking about the tricameral constitution. "Firstly, it adequately guarantees the preservation of White security, of White vested rights and of those values which the Whites regard as non-negotiable." That was Mr De Klerk.

Is it not ironic that, at the very time that poor Roelfie Meyer is being asked to devise a strategy to broaden the base of NP support in order to reach out to South Africans of all colours, it is the same NP which is continuing to argue for the entrenchment of single-medium education, in other words for the specific protection of Afrikaans education. The NP reaches out on the one hand and retreats into racial exclusivity on the other.

My own special joy in this constitution is centred on two specific features. The first lies in the fact of the supremacy of the constitution. For the first time in my life I will live in a country where it is the constitution which will define and protect my rights, and the rights of all my countrymen, and not party politicians.

Never again must politicians be free to tamper with the rights of our people-no high court of Parliament, no inflated Senate, no gerrymandering of constituencies and constituency boundaries in the electoral process. Included today in the document before us is the testing right and power of the independent courts, all critical to a truly independent and democratic State, all part of the checks and the balances which go to ensure freedom for all, freedom not just for a racial minority, freedom not even exclusively for a majority, but rather a full citizenship and a full freedom for all who are proud to call themselves South Africans.

Another joy which, for me, is to be seen in this constitution is implicit in the terms of the new constitution itself, that is the very clear separation of powers distinguishing the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

When the powers of the executive are blurred with those of the legislature, it inevitably ends, as it did in the past regime, in a pliable, acquiescent legislature totally dominated by the Cabinet and by the party bosses. In that atmosphere standing committees become a sinecure and are no more than rubber stamps of the executive- and Danie Schutte can tell us all about how his justice committee was just such a sinecure in those days. They are no longer rubber stamps of the executive.

I say thank God that with the help of this constitution, and because of the lively spirit of independence being shown day after day by the chairpersons and by the portfolio committees, the legislature in South Africa is at last coming into its own.

In broad terms, in so far as the judiciary is concerned, separation of powers means, firstly, that judges shall not also be members of the legislature or of executive organs of State. Secondly, members of the legislature or executive organs of State shall not also function as judicial officers. Thirdly, the courts of law shall not perform legislative or executive functions. Finally, legislative and executive organs of State shall not also perform judicial functions.

Therein lies the greatest peril, for when politicians write laws which exclude the intervention of the courts, and take upon themselves the right to order arrests, detentions without trial, arbitrary bannings and the like, a country descends into a state of tyranny and an era of suppression and of violent repression. We have been through that and we know all about it. While this constitution lives, this one which is before us today, never again will those awful conditions prevail in our land.

There is much more that I would like to say, but there is no time. I would have liked to address the DP and to have urged them not to miss this great chance to play a positive role at this moment in our history, but there is no time.

So, in closing, I would like to express my thanks-and I am sure that of my colleagues-to the Chair of this Assembly, who with the aid of the Deputy Chairperson created and set up the consensus-seeking structures in which we have all participated. It is these two persons who have driven us all to achieve, finally, what we hope to achieve at the end of this debate, the adoption of a democratic and a legitimate constitution of which we can all be proud.

When, in the years to come, this constitution is mentioned, the names of Cyril Ramaphosa, and I believe, Leon Wessels, will be remembered. All South Africans are in their debt. We all wish them both happiness and success in all the challenges they face in the future. [Applause.]

Mr D M MALATSI: Mr Chairman, I thank you very much for this opportunity to address this Constitutional Assembly today, the day before the adoption of the new constitution of the Republic of South Africa. I would like to say that I feel humbled to be given an opportunity to participate in this debate, and whatever criticism may be forthcoming in regard to all the parties that are constructively trying to contribute to the improvement of the text should not be seen as being "obstructionist", as I have heard many people say here today. We would be failing in our duty if we were not to voice those issues about which we feel strongly and which we feel can be improved. Also, I hope that we are not going to fail the people of South Africa. I hope and pray that tomorrow all of us present here today are going to hold hands proudly as South Africans and vote for the constitution of this country. [Applause.] I hope and pray also that the ANC, as the majority party in this country, will look into the concerns of the minority parties so that we have a constitution in this country that will be adopted by consensus.

A referendum is something that we should avoid at all costs. [Applause.] I say that because I believe that South Africa belongs to all of us who live in it . . . [Applause.] . . . irrespective of what we have seen. Having said that, I also have to say that we owe it to the people out there to bring about the confidence that the economy of this country needs and the investors need, and that can only be achieved if tomorrow all of us present in this Chamber hold hands and do South Africa proud. [Applause.]

I would like to say that we in the NP will do our utmost, even if it means not sleeping today, to see to it that we do not disappoint this country tomorrow. [Applause.] Even though some hon members may doubt my bona fides, I am one of the people who feel very proud to be in the NP... [Interjections] . . . and I believe we will be able to cross the Rubicon-is it a second Rubicon or the Red Sea or the Green Sea or the ANC Sea? [Interjections.] Whatever it is, we will be able to cross it proudly with all the people of this country.

Before I leave the platform, may I say that I would be failing in my duty if I did not mention the improvements which have been made to the chapter on traditional authorities ever since I voiced my concern here last week that the chapter, as it then stood, was insufficient. [Interjections.] The ANC, in their humility, have accepted some of the proposals I submitted to them. I would like to give credit to them in so far as that is concerned and say that for the first time the institution of traditional leadership will be recognised in the constitution of this country.

I hope that the traditional leaders out there will accept that and persuade the provincial legislatures to establish Houses of Traditional Leaders in those provinces where they are not yet in existence. We should also pay tribute to the traditional leaders who played a prominent role in the adoption of the interim Constitution that saw to the recognition of Constitutional Principle XIII and Constitutional Principle XVII. Many of them are seated among the ANC members today and I would like to say that from the traditional perspective we owe the recognition for traditional leaders to their contribution.

In this country we will have peace when all the societies we find in this country, namely traditional, nontraditional, women and nonwomen, accept that peace in this country can prevail only when we have the protection of all the institutions.

For the first time, I would like to say that traditional authorities cannot survive unless they adapt. The institution of traditional leadership should not clamour for the powers of the former homelands where they were politically inclined. Their role should be redefined. We should all accept that the role of traditional institutions and traditional leadership in this constitution will not be to play a prominent political role, but to play a prominent customary, traditional role to unify all people, and in which they will be above party politics. I hope and pray that traditional leaders will do their utmost to see to it that the constitution provides for that as a basis and that they will persuade their provincial legislatures to do what is for the best.

With these words I would like to say I hope that tomorrow will be our day, the day of all of us in South Africa. [Applause.]

Mr M J MAHLANGU: Mr Chairperson, I would like to thank you this afternoon for allowing me to participate in this debate which I find very exciting. I do so with very great confidence.

Sovereignty rests in the people of South Africa. When I talk about the people of South Africa, I mean all South Africans, irrespective of race, colour or creed. Their will shall be expressed by their democratically elected representatives in periodic free and fair elections. These elected representatives will adopt a constitution which shall be the highest law of the land and which shall guarantee their basic rights.

In 1994, when we were elected to Parliament, we were given a mandate by the people who elected us to come here to draw up a constitution which would be the product of all South Africans. The mandate we were given had a timeframe attached to it in that we were to complete this constitution in two years' time. We are going to adopt this constitution tomorrow and yet we are surprised that at the dawn of such a day, there are some people who do not feel free to adopt this constitution tomorrow.

Are they now turning against the mandate given to them by their voters? Are they saying: "To hell with our people. We are not going to adopt the constitution"? Are they not feeling ashamed to say: "Let us not meet the timeframe tomorrow"?

I think if we do that, we shall really be doing a very wrong thing. We should not be seen to be doing a thing like that. I think tomorrow we should be prepared to say: "This is the work we have done over a period of two years, the work in which all of us have been seriously engaged. We now see the product and we should go ahead and adopt the constitution."

Ever since it was formed in 1912, the ANC's goal has been to give all the people of our country the chance to elect their own government. That is why generations of our leaders and members have set their sights on the objective of a new and democratic constitution which will at last remove colonialism from the African people, abolish all forms of discrimination and recognise the basic equality of all South Africans.

Having said that, I would like to concentrate on two chapters only. Chapters 6 and 12 respectively. Let me touch briefly on the question of traditional leaders on which Mr Malatsi has commented. The institution of traditional leadership has played an important role in the history of our country and traditional leaders will continue to have an important role to play in unifying our people and performing ceremonial powers and other functions granted to them by law.

From time immemorial, the African people have been ruled by the chiefs. The problem that we are currently facing is that the traditional authorities are given precisely the powers and functions which are given to the elected local structures. The immediate problem that one is confronted with is who does what.

When one allocates the Budget, how does one allocate it to the competing structures? Who takes the decisions, especially in respect of the delivery of services? This is an immediate problem we are facing on the ground.

Chapter 12 tries to address precisely these problems. The national legislation should start addressing these problems so as to avoid conflict between the traditional leaders and the elected leaders.

The problem is that once we have such conflicts, then we have the problem of delivering services on the ground. People in the rural areas are the people who do not have roads, water, jobs or electricity. They have poor health facilities and no classroom accommodation. Therefore, we do not seek that confrontation. We need to deliver and to take care of those people.

The recognition of traditional leaders in clause 211 of the constitution is most welcome as far as the ANC is concerned, and we hope that this institution will find itself contributing very thoroughly and significantly to the governance of this country.

I would like to turn to Chapter 6 on provinces, specifically clause 103(2) dealing with the question of boundaries which has not yet been solved at the present moment. We are all aware that this is a very thorny issue for many South Africans and that it is also causing conflicts on the ground. However, what makes me happy today is that the constitution leaves it open for the provinces, and even the National Council of Provinces, to participate fully, in conjunction with all the people on the ground, in order to deliberate on this matter and try to solve it. This would allow us to avoid bloodshed, misunderstandings and conflicts which we are faced with at the present moment.

In conclusion I want to say what I am now going to say, a little more slowly so that people can understand what I am trying to convey. We are very proud of our role in pioneering democracy and constitutionalism in our land. None has fought harder for freedom and democracy than we have done. Here I want to pause a little.

Ngithanda utaiqhubeka ngikhulume ngesiZulu ngithi: Afile amadoda. elwela inkululeko. Bafile omama, befela inkululeko. Zifile izintombi, zifela inkululeko. Zifile izinsizwa, kungentando yazo, kodwa zifela inkululeko. Bafile abantwana beminyaka emithathu, nabaneminyaka emine behamba ezitiladini, belwela inkululeko. (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.)

[I would like to continue in Zulu and say: Men have been killed, killed for freedom. Women have been killed, killed for freedom. Girls have been killed, killed for freedom. Young men have been killed, killed for freedom. Children as young as three and four years old have been killed in the streets, fighting for freedom.]

They were killed against their will, fighting for freedom, and the constitution that we are drafting today is the constitution that wants to heal those wounds. The constitution we are drafting today is the constitution that, as we say in isiZulu ... ethanda ukuthoba amanxeba, nethanda ukususa izinyembezi zalabo abasaphila namhlanje. [ . . . will heal the wounds and wipe away the tears of those who are still living today.]

The constitution we are drafting today, is the constitution which says that now we have democracy in this country and now we are recognised as first-class citizens of this country. This constitution guarantees a place for civic bodies, trade unions and numerous other organisations which people create to deal with their everyday problems and aspirations. These are the institutions of civil society which are crucial if we are to have a deep and thorough democratic order. This constitution which we are adopting today not only guarantees accountable, nonracial, nonsexist and democratic structures of government, but also empowers all the citizens of this country to shape, and to share in, the many aspects of life outside government.

(Translation of Zulu paragraphs .) [Mr Chairperson, I would like to thank you for this opportunity you gave me. I have seen the difficulties the members of this House had, trying to finalise this constitution. I am referring to this constitution that will make all of us happy and enjoy being the children of Africa; not a situation in which some people are enjoying and some are suffering from hunger; not a situation in which some will be dancing while others are crying; and also not a situation in which some will be oppressed while others are enjoying themselves

With this constitution, all of us today are one, not racially but because we are all inhabitants of this country .I say, let us accept this constitution with happiness and without any arguments. There is nothing else that the ANC can do. If we make a comparison with a cow, we can say we have milked it until there is no milk left. Only blood will come out if we go on. We can therefore not milk the cow until we get blood. We have compromised enough and there is nothing more we can offer. Let us vote, be free and be happy.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: I would just like to make an announcement. This is the day for mass speakers. We have a mass speakers' list, and this is also the day for mass negotiation. It is now time for the new constitution. The announcement pertains to the following. The CC will meet concurrently with this session of the CA at 19:30. They will go through the outstanding reports which they still have to entertain. Those speakers who are still on our list but engaged in the CC will be slotted in, so that they can report to us in the CA about what happened in the CC since 19:30.

Mr S J DE BEER: Mr Chairperson, we are now nearing the end of the process of establishing South Africa's first real democratic constitution. To me, to have been part of this process has certainly been one of the highlights of the 22 years in which I have had the privilege of being in Parliament. I want to agree wholeheartedly with my colleagues Johnny de Lange and Dave Dalling when they say that Cyril Ramaphosa and Leon Wessels did South Africa proud with the excellent way in which they managed this process.

In this process I had the privilege of being the chairperson of the committee which had to recommend the names of those who were to be appointed to the panel of experts and the technical advisors who were to assist us in the mammoth task of writing a constitution. The wonderful thing about the way this committee executed its task was that it was not necessary on any occasion to vote on the appointment of a candidate.

Furthermore, after having been involved with these experts and advisors for nearly two years, I think that we can say tonight that they really made an exceptional contribution. Not only were they absolutely professional in the execution of their duties, but throughout the process they succeeded in retaining the respect and confidence of the members. We want to thank them for their outstanding contribution.

Right from the start of this process Theme Committee 6 seemed to be a bit different from the other committees. Not only did we have a very broad field of topics to cover, but from the outset all the members in this committee really worked as a team To me this was a most enriching experience and a wonderful way of getting better acquainted with colleagues of all parties. I want to thank them for their positive contributions and their positive attitude.

Prof Piet van der Merwe and Daya Pillie made a great contribution in assisting us in producing the chapter on public administration, while the staff of the CA was outstanding in the services which they rendered.

After the chapter on public administration had been published for comment, we realised that the way in which we tried to determine which institutions should comprise part of public administration would lead to great confusion. We received many objections about this, particularly from the universities. The text as it has now been formulated therefore no longer tries to determine who or what comprises part of public administration. It now determines the basic values and principles of public administration, and further provides that these values should be applicable to the Public Service, organs of State and public enterprises. The field in which the values and principles of public administration should be included has therefore now been determined much more specifically. In evaluating the various values that have been expounded in clause 195 it is important to consider each of the values in association with the others. The values should not be isolated, but read in conjunction with all the other values as far as cohesion and balance is concerned and it should be applied in order to define effective administration.

The proposed change of the name of the Public Service Commission to "Public Administration Commission" (PAC) was also confusing. I do not think the PAC liked it either, and this led to quite a number of misunderstandings about the scope of responsibility of the commission. Therefore the name "Public Service Commission" was reintroduced, and the responsibility of the commission was limited to the sphere of the Public Service. These corrections were also welcomed.

Although the initial standpoint of the NP was that the provincial public service commissions should continue to exist, the committee decided against it. The provinces nevertheless now acquire the right to nominate a member each to serve on the Public Service Commission. Each provincial representative will also be able to perform the function of the commission within his or her province, and there is nothing in the constitution to prevent provinces from establishing any structures around these members of the commission in the provinces. The basic principles of the Public Service, as defined in the Interim Constitution, are also included in this constitution.

The expression "broadly representative" is of- ten used in this constitution. I now want to use it in a somewhat different way. In conclusion I want to say that if the general relationship between all the people of South Africa could be broadly representative of the relationships that exist between the members of the parties in the Constitutional Assembly, as I have experienced them in the last two years, I believe that South Africa would be the most wonderful place in the world to live in. I pray this evening that this constitution may contribute to such a South Africa.

Mr M MZ DYANI: Mr Chairperson, I am speaking here on behalf of Mr Makwetu. Unfortunately he had to leave before delivering the speech which I am about to deliver on behalf of the PAC. Before the final word is said on the constitution, we would once again like to state our position on the question of traditional leaders. Before I do so, I would like to emphasise that our position has not changed on the property cause, the lockout clause, the preamble and the language question.

On traditional leaders, the PA.C believes that Chapter 12 does not address the provisions of Constitutional Principle XIII. In our submission on the second House, which we made on 12 February 1996, we proposed that at national level traditional leaders should be accommodated in the national council. This did not receive favourable treatment. In the Constitutional Assembly on 23 April 1996 we submitted a compromise that the interim Constitution's provisions with regard to the Council of Traditional Leaders, the Houses in the provinces and the ex officio status in local government should be retained. We had hoped that the submissions to the CA by Contralesa in April 1966, and by Prof J J Olivier and his team on the 31 March 1966, would be given serious attention.

We still feel that this can be done. The CA experts can take them into account in drafting clauses that are in accordance with Constitutional Principle XIII.

We humbly but strongly submit that one of our concerns about the new constitution is the shabby treatment of African traditional institutions, traditional law and traditional authority. The two or so paragraphs in the new draft are not sufficient, and we also think they do not meet the requirements of Constitutional Principle XXIII. The issue of African customary law and the Bill of Rights need to be handled in a more serious and sensitive manner. The approach must allow evolution, dialogue, education, interaction and finally integration.

We are convinced that African customary law and human rights principles are not mutually exclusive. It is common cause that some of the principles were influenced in their formative stages by different cultural practices and value systems. Informed and constructive dialogue is necessary to resolve the apparent and unnecessary conceptual differences.

Furthermore, the protection of communal land has not been addressed in the new property clause. There is a possibility that it may be expropriated by the State and sold to private persons. Our people need to be constitutionally assured that such a malady will never be inflicted on them. African experience has shown that the institution of traditional leaders is very resilient and will survive any arbitrary attempt to undermine or abolish it. Time and people alone will determine its relevance.

Lastly, we should always remember that South Africa is an African country.

Dr Q W KOORNHOF: Mr Chairperson, it is a privilege for me to take part in this historical debate on the eve of the adoption of our constitution. I also associate myself with the congratulations that my other colleagues conveyed to you and Mr Cyril Ramaphosa on your excellent handling and leadership of this constitutional process.

Chapter 11, which deals with the security services, is one of the most substantial chapters in this constitution. It relates to a large and important segment of our society, namely the people who have selected professional careers in the SA National Defence Force, the SA Police Service and the intelligence services. When we as political parties started to negotiate on the security services, a huge gap existed between the various viewpoints. Each party had a somewhat different point of departure. If the ANC had to write its own chapter on security services, I believe it would have differed in major aspects from what is in front of us at the moment Similarly, if we as the NP were to write a new chapter, we would have placed a different emphasis on the security services. However, in the end we produced a mutually acceptable chapter. There is now a balance between the competencies of central Government and the provincial governments regarding this matter.

An important clause now makes it possible under appropriate circumstances for a municipality to establish a municipal law enforcement agency, that is municipal or metropolitan policing, to be regulated by national legislation. The crime situation in our country has deteriorated over the past two years to such an extent that this clause has become very necessary.

We welcome the acknowledgement that we need strong multiparty parliamentary committees to exercise oversight over all security services. This is confirmed in clauses 57 and 70 of the constitution, which state that the Rules and Orders of the National Assembly and also of the new National Council of Provinces must provide for the participation of all minority parties in the proceedings of both the Houses, but importantly, also in all committees. It also establishes the principles of transparency and accountability.

Regarding the command of the SA National Defence Force, it was decided to leave open the option of either appointing a single Chief of the Defence Force or appointing Joint Chiefs of Staff. These options have to be studied very carefully, and the opinions of the SANDF and stakeholders will have to be taken into account and into consideration if we want to achieve a national consensus on defence. I think the clause which states that the Minister of Defence must exercise command over the De- fence Force under the authority of the President is a case of overkill. It is only natural to expect that such a Minister will liaise with the Cabinet and the President when necessary. This is already covered in clause 92 of the constitution.

Regarding the SA Police Service, we started out with two possible models, namely a single police service or nine autonomous police services. We are satisfied that we have reached a balance and that the SAPS can now operate at two and, if necessary, at three different levels. We are particularly pleased that the police are now included in Schedule 4 of the constitution, and are therefore part of the concurrent legislative competencies.

In particular, we welcome the following clauses. Firstly, when national legislation establishes the powers and functions of the police service, it must take the requirements of the provinces into consideration. Secondly, national policing policy can only be determined after consultation with provincial governments and by taking the needs of the provinces into account. Thirdly, each province is now entitled, in this constitution, to a wide range of functions, preparing the way for cooperative governance, and making the central government and the provinces important role- players. Fourthly and lastly, the national commissioner can now only appoint a provincial commissioner after consultation with the provincial executive.

I wish to conclude. The chapter on security services is well balanced. It is now time for us, as politicians, to allow the security services to continue with their job and to serve the interests of our beloved country and all its people.

Ms D P JANA: Mr Chairperson and members of this Assembly, this is a glorious occasion, and I am honoured to be part of the proceedings. I think that, even at this stage, we can begin celebrating, because we are now finally moving towards consolidating our freedom.

This constitution, which is not a draft or interim constitution but the constitution of our country and the supreme law of our land, is a product of much sacrifice and energy, not only by us, the members of the Constitutional Assembly, but by millions of South African people who, in many different forms and ways and through different mechanisms, contributed to the drafting of this constitution. It is our constitution, written with the sweat and intellectual labour of our people, no matter whether these contributions were made in a tiny, obscure village in the depths of KwaZulu- Natal or intensely debated in the towering corridors of power. This constitution is the accomplishment of a victory for the people of our country.

I am not going to talk about those aspects of the constitution in which we have failed, as parties, to reach an agreement as yet. I am going to refer to some of those general aspects on which, despite our varying ideologies, we have found common ground. This is important because, in the end, we have produced a document that represents the aspirations of our people. I would like to comment on the Bill of Rights and, in particular, on the so-called second generation rights, that is to say, rights of a socio-economic nature.

The advancement of fundamental rights pertaining to the liberty of persons and political freedoms, for example the right to equality, the right to dignity, the right to privacy, the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association, is easily containable. However, socio-economic rights which saddle the Government with positive obligations for fulfilment may not be so easily containable, and certainly pose a challenge to any society, no matter how affluent it is.

The Bill of Rights in Chapter 2 provides for these socioeconomic rights-the right of access to adequate housing, health care, food, water, social security, education, and children's rights to basic nutrition, shelter, basic health care and social services. These socio-economic rights for children and basic education are unqualified rights whilst further education, together with other socio-economic rights, is subject to the availability of resources.

What does this provision in the constitution, guaranteeing socio-economic rights, really mean? It means that the legislature or an executive official is not entitled to place impediments on the rights of a citizen to have access to housing, health care, food, water, social security and education. However, that is not all. More importantly, it also means that the State has an obligation to secure such rights for its citizens. The constitution provides in clause 27(2) and I quote:

The State must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.

This provision imposes on the Government a duty, a responsibility and a commitment to do something positive within the ambit of its re- sources. This would create an enabling environment in which either the State or sectors of civil society would be in a position to facilitate that which is guaranteed in this constitution as second- generation rights.

However, the socio-economic rights provided for in this constitution are limited by the capacity of the State to deliver, and this is expressly stipulated in the constitution. It is important and certainly necessary that we adopt a realistic approach to these rights and not simply have a populistic type of approach. Let me put it this way: If the State simply lacks financial resources to give food to the humblest of its citizens, then the logic and ferocity of a judicial order compelling the State to do so will be rendered utterly meaningless. It certainly cannot convert the empty granaries of the nation into baskets full of food. A nation which does not have sufficient resources might not be compelled to fulfil the socioeconomic rights guaranteed in its constitution.

However, if that incapacity is caused by budgetary constraints or where there is an injudicious wastage of natural resources, for example, by disproportionate and wasteful expenditure on arms or a bloated civil service, the budgetary discretion of the legislature or the executive may be challenged, and why not?

In one of the last publications of the Reconstruction and Development Programme Office, the "Key Indicators of Poverty in South Africa", it is stated that the lowest 40% of households, equivalent to 53% of the population, account for less than 10% of total consumption. The top 10% of households, making up only 5,8% of the population, account for over 40% of consumption. It is that 53% of our population which is our primary concern as a Government, and it is at that 53% of our population that the socio-economic rights in this constitution are directed. Therefore, any disproportionate allocation of national resources must be avoided so as to prevent needless poverty. We in the ANC hail the socio-economic rights in this constitution and dedicate them to the under- privileged sectors of our nation.

Finally, our constitution is certainly in the forefront of international constitutional trends. How- ever, these socio-economic rights, as stated in this constitution, should not limit us in our creativity. We should endeavour by different legislative means to achieve a new socio-economic order which can at least guarantee basic social justice, to which we so boldly commit our nation in our preamble.

After all, a constitution is the formal concretisation of the dreams of a nation. Every nation must dream, and every generation must . have an ideal. It is in pursuit of that ideal dream that we hope to adopt this constitution tomorrow.

Finally, Mr Deputy Chairperson, let me be pre- sumptuous and congratulate you and our Chair- person, Mr Ramaphosa, today on your wonderful endeavours. [Applause.]

Mr D HM GIBSON: Mr Chairperson, my friend the hon Ms Jana referred this as a glorious moment. It is a pity that % of the Constitutional Assembly are having dinner rather than hearing the words that she uttered to us, and that I am about to utter as well.

Nevertheless, the making of a constitution is a profound moment in the life of a nation. The product of our work over the past several years can become a charter for the growth, development, prosperity, happiness, success, the equality and the freedom of all our people for many decades to come. This constitution must not and cannot be permitted to degenerate into paper promises and empty, pious wishes. If that hap- pens, the politicians of this generation will bear a very heavy responsibility. We will not be remembered with respect and affection; on the contrary, we will be remembered as the people who let our own people down, those who dissipated the marvelous potential and promise which heralded the birth of our new nation. We have an enormous responsibility.

In the few minutes available to me I wish to focus , on two of the minority parties who played a role in the drafting of this constitution out of all proportion to their size, and I refer to the DP and the SACP. The SACP is fond of dismissing the DP as a 1,7% party, but I think even they will concede that at every step of the way of drafting this constitution the DP was there, and that at every step of the way we made our inputs, and we tried our level best to improve and to refine virtually every clause of this constitution. In many cases we succeeded. We claim the credit for that. I want to say that this constitution would have been better if our advice had been followed more often.

What of the SACP? They are not a 1,7% party. They did not test their support at the last election. They did not seek a mandate, and they did not get it. Despite all of that, however, they also played a role in the drafting of this constitution out of all proportion to their support or to their numbers. Some of the cleverest, shrewdest, hardest-working people in this Constitutional Assembly are members of the SACP. They played an enormous role. Some of them are very charming, and-some of them have become good friends of mine. I want to say as well that some of the most unsatisfactory aspects of this constitution can be placed at the door of the members of the SACP.

I stated at the beginning that this constitution should be South Africa's charter for success, that this should be the charter which really does deliver a better life to all the people in South Africa. The people who belong to the SACP have a pervasive influence, and unfortunately they are still in love with an ideology and an -ism which fails. They support Cosatu, for example, a union which is dedicated to the interests of 1,9 million people, and foigets about the 7 million unemployed people in South Africa. Cosatu and Sam Shilowa care not a scrap about the unemployed mother with kids, who has to fight to feed herself and her children, to keep body and soul together. I would like to challenge any member of this Constitutional Assembly to show me one job that that same Sam Shilowa has created through his policies and his "Viva socialism" and his "Viva SACP". It is exactly those policies which Sam follows and that he leads you around by the nose with that is the recipe for failure in South Africa.

What one must do is to contrast what happens to the successful nations in the world, in the coun- tries of this world which provide freedom, equality and real democracy, and which really do provide a better life for their people. They are not the countries which try the socialistic experiment.

I want to contrast what Mr Shilowa and his "handlangers" in this Constitutional Assembly stand for with what we in the DP stand for. What we stand for is liberal democracy, which has succeeded, and a social market which does provide a better life for all. [Time expired.]

Mr G M MUSHWANA: Mr Chairperson, comrades and colleagues, today we stand here tall and proud as representatives of millions of South Africans who, for centuries, have lived in a country in which they had no rights, no opportunities and no say in the government.

As we are gathered here to debate this final adoption of the supreme law of the country, we are saddened hv the fact that most of those who suffered and the many who gave their lives for the realisation of this important day are not here to celebrate the fruits of their labours. I want to say here today that no amount of money will be enough to compensate the parents-and families of South Africa's sons and daughters who suffered under Andre Fourie and laid their precious lives down to make sure that South Africans of all cultures were free.

As we enter a new era m our life and history as a new and free nation, we need to erect a monument for all who suffered and died in the struggle for freedom against the oppressive regime. I could not agree more with the sentiments that were expressed by the Chairperson when he opened this debate. While we consider that, I would further like to say that we also need to take cognisance of the role that our women have played in the struggle for freedom. I would also like to take cognisance of the fact that our children, way back in 1976, also had a meaningful role to play in bringing us to where we are today.

The monument will stand as a constant reminder of our sad past, so that future generations remember and uphold the moral ideals our heroes fought and died for. We are not bent on revenge, but we dare not forget our past, lest we commit the same mistakes which caused so much pain.

Let those who wept weep no more. Let those who have lost their loved ones find solace in the knowledge that all of us who are gathered here today share in their loss and their grief. Yes, we are ready to forgive, on condition that we all join hands as fellow South Africans who are ready to build a country in which we will all live in harmony and cherish the ideals of a free and united society.

Chapter 9 provides for the establishment of a Public Protector and a Human Rights Commission.

Those are the cornerstones of our constitution. With those establishments we are saying that we are guaranteeing that our people will never again, under any circumstances, go through the abuses of apartheid which were committed against them. In the past the apartheid regime decided for them where to live, with whom to associate, which school to attend, and even whether to go to school, in order that the minority could enjoy all the privileges that the country had to offer.

(Translation of Tsonga paragraphs follows.) [In the past they had a difficult time. They were faced with a huge monster that nearly destroyed the nation. They wanted us to live in the darkness and under the veil of ignorance. All the efforts of those who suffered under apartheid would have been in vain.

The constitution which we are discussing today is the constitution which has been written in line with the requirements of all the people of our country: workers, doctors, the educated and the uneducated, all our people have had a say in this constitution.

In the past we were governed by a constitution which was written by others who thought that God had given them the power to tell and dictate to Blacks as to where they should live and with whom, which education was right for them so that they remain hewers of wood and drawers of water.

We are now delighted that the constitution which we are discussing is the constitution in which all the people have had a say. We have no doubt that all the people of the country, the educated and those who are not educated, the rich and the poor, White and Black, all happily accept this constitution.

Those who do not accept this constitution should go to some enemy territory. Those who want to live in the past want us to go back to Egypt where there is too much suffering.

We are aware of what is happening in KwaZulu- Natal, where our people are dying like flies. It is only one day that the Zulu people in Natal will say: "We have had enough, we are no longer interested in what we are seeing." When that day comes, some people will be in trouble.

The issue that still remains to be resolved meticulously is the distribution of land and property to all the people of our country. While most of the property is still in the hands of Whites-and until such time as Blacks have a say in it-nothing will come right.

Workers also have for so long been suffering under the bosses who filled their stomachs through our efforts. We are aware of that. Now the time has come for them to show their dissatisfaction in every way possible with regard to what they want to see in the constitution. Let us not blame the workers.

Many people have suffered in our country. Today, by passing this constitution, we are saying that never again should there be anyone in South Africa who will be made to suffer because of apartheid or in any other way which is intended to make people suffer. We are saying that those who do not want to pass this constitution should leave this country. [Applause.]]

Mr M RAMGOBIN: Mr Chairperson, comrades, members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, on this occasion, the debate on the constitution, I would have liked to appeal at the outset for us to elevate the debate to such a level that it was not capable of being reduced to the acrimonious exchanges in which we are engaged. I would like to say something in my mother tongue. When I say "Vande matarum" I am saying "I salute you, my mother South Africa." When I say "Vande matarum," I am saying "I owe obeisance to you, my mother South Africa." However, if my children came here today and said to me "Daddy, you have taught us national consciousness, you have taught us all about national character. We would like to say some- thing to you, father, of which, perfiaps, you are not aware," they would say to me in my mother tongue "Bahut kooch dekka, magar rashtriya charitra nahi dekka", which means, my fellow South Africans, "We came here and we saw many things, but we have not seen is national character and national consciousness."

It is a pity that the Minister of Justice and Mr Mfebe are not here. I think when we seek to relate to people whose histories are replete with opportunism,greed, avarice and racism, it comes to us that a constitution that we seek to present was, in the first instance, in the crucible of our inner consciousness. It was not born in opportunism, it was not not born in avarice and greed and it was not born in hate.

I am saying that the effort to build a constitution of this nature began when the first spear was raised by Black people in attacking aggressors in their land, when the first shield was raised by Black people in the defence of their motherland. Since 1652-the ladies and gentlemen on that side should note this-there has been a constant effort towards this day. Now that we have reached this day we want to remind those members that it was the magnanimity of the ANC that drew them into the concept that says South Africa belongs to all who live in it.

Now, we are asking those members to make South Africa livable for all who live in it. On the basis that we drew up the Freedom Charter, thus becoming the architects of South Africa's destiny, we declare today that if anything comes between the destiny of South Africa and ourselves, we will raise the spear again. [Interjections.]

The adoption of this constitution is not the be-all and end-all. It is part of a process of legitimising the aspirations of our people. This constitution is going to guarantee, for the majority of people in south Africa, freedom from poverty, freedom from disease, freedom from hunger and freedom from subjugation-politically and economically. We will not tolerate for a single moment the calls from a minority who seek, through the constitution, to legitimise monopoly capital, and to legitimise racism all over again in this country, because they know as well as we do that the instruments of production are still in the hands of that minority.

An HON MEMBER: Bua! [Tell them.]

Mr M RAMGOBIN: We have arrived at this position today through the process of representative and participatory democracy. On this basis my mind goes back to 26 years ago, when I was one of those people who said to the world that for as long as the Mandelas, Sisulus, Kathradas and Bram Fischers were in jail, their ideas would be compatible with those of Jesus Christ.

No matter how much one talks about God, we need to reflect on the ideas left to us by Bram Fischer and Oliver Tambo, the ideas that are still being exposed to us by Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu. These are the ideas that have formed the basis and genesis of what I believe to be Christianity. I believe they arc compatible with the Sermon on the Mount. We will not tolerate the current sermons here today from certain detractors in this House, whether they be about God or any economic feature.

We say to them, over and over again, please do not test the patience of people who have come from a background of repression. We say to them that this constitution affords us all the opportunity to enter into a covenant, a covenant which Nehru, at the time of the implementation and adoption of the Indian constitution, called a "tryst with destiny". If they do not want to be our partners, it is their choice to be left on the dungheaps of history.

We say that on the basis of a particular kind of confidence and co-operation, the adaptability of the ANC is now converted into a particular kind of hardness. I pray to God that we do not move from this hardness, because apartheid was a fount of a particular kind of spirituality that they, the Nats, boasted about. We say that this constitution will indeed lead the DP and the White sectors of the NP to their spiritual loneliness. Yes, it must lead them to then- spiritual loneliness, because their spirituality was based on apartheid. They will be strangers in South Africa for as long as they do not subscribe to this constitution. Just as the IFF has done, they will exile themselves, from the process and from history. [Interjections.]

In seeking this covenant with each other, we are not saying for a single moment that we in the ANC have the monopoly of truth on our side. We appeal to those members to join us and tell us where we are going wrong. Show us the path. Instead they have given us the path of apartheid and seek to cling to it. [Interjections.]

Indeed, I do not for a single moment confuse their adventurous opportunism with the kind of idealism we are possessed of. We in the ANC are saying: "You may stand on your head. Madam, and get blue in the face, but we will not betray the confidence of the people who asked us to lead the way." [Applause.]

By not betraying this confidence, we are saying to hon members today that we want to build the cohesion of South African unity and we are not going to do it on their terms. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr A FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I must be quite honest. Listening to Mr Ramgobin, there are a lot of things with which one could differ, but perhaps if more of his colleagues spoke in the spirit in which he spoke, I would not make the speech that l am going to make now.

Before I come to my speech, I want to tell the previous speaker, Mr Mushwana, that he has a cheek. Whilst the comrades that he talked about were involved in the freedom struggle, were locked up or in exile, he was getting fat off apartheid in Gazankulu.

I want to say tonight that nobody can question the bona fides of the NP and our sincere desire to contribute to and work towards an agreed, negotiated, lasting constitution. But one thing is clear, especially after listening to the Dullah Omars of this world: The spirit of reconciliation that I thought was going to be debated in this Chamber is seriously in jeopardy. That is the theme of my speech and that is my concern tonight.

Prof B TUROK: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order!

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: I have to entertain you. What is the point of order?

Prof B TUROK: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: The speaker has repeatedly referred to members of this House by name without the term "hon" as a prefix. That is out of order.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: I am afraid that is not a point of order. We have a free-flowing debate in which we can refer to members as Mr, Miss, etc. Mr Fourie may continue.

Mr A FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I have reached the stage where I feel that voting for or against this constitution is no longer of such importance. What is important is the spirit in which the ANC majority is going to implement this constitution. That will be the test. What concerns me is that some of the speeches that we have had to listen to during the past two days smack of majoritarianism in its worst form. We are having a taste of the absolute abuse of power of the masses which is going to be the obvious pattern in the future.

Miss I W DIREKO: The hon member abused power in Gazankulu.

Mr A FOURIE: I must confess that I am not overenthusiastic about this constitution. One might ask me why, and I want to answer that.

Miss I W DIREKO: The hon member abused it in Gazankulu.

Mr A FOURIE: Why does the hon member not shut up? I cannot make my speech. Does she have no manners? [Laughter.) What was the purpose of the process that we entered into? The purpose of the process, to my mind, was the process of reconciliation and of nation-building. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order!

Mrs G N M PANDOR: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: I have read the Rules and even you will admit that this is certainly unparliamentary. I request that you ask the hon member to withdraw that remark while perhaps at the same time asking members to be less robust in their responses.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Will the hon member please consider withdrawing that remark?

Mr A FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I will withdraw it, but as far as I know it is not unparliamentary. [Interjections.] I want to say that I detect a bias from the ANC regarding the spirit of reconciliation, the spirit of reconciling the needs and aspirations of the so-called deprived on the one hand and the vested rights and the concerns of the so-called privileged on the other hand. Domination is going to prevail in this land if what we have heard in the speeches on the side of the governing party, the majority party, is going to prevail.

Secondly, we thought that we were going to write a constitution which we all believe should live in the hearts and the minds of every single South African, whether one is in the majority or in the minority. Now let me say to hon members that if the NP did anything wrong in the past, then surely there is no reason for the ANC to say that two wrongs make a right, and for it to adopt the same attitude. What is the ANC's example of morality that it is trying to preach to South Africa? Does it want to copy what it is rejecting, what the governments of the past did to South Africa? I question the bona fides of the ANC.

If I listen to one power-hungry ANC speaker after another, it is clear that the previous so-called NP minority regime is going to be replaced, in this country, by a very vicious, very vociferous, and very arrogant ANC majority regime. [Interjections.] Tragically, I would like to say, that that is exactly what we tried to avoid right from the beginning of the process . . .

Prof B TUROK: Mr Chairperson, I want to intervene. I would like to ask the hon member if he would like to take a question. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! No, he will not.

Prof B TUROK: Mr Chairperson, he did not say that he would not take a question.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! The hon member will not take a question.

Mr A FOURIE: Mr Chairperson, I want to say today that we, as a minority party, came with a bona fide approach to the writing of this constitution. The impression that I get is that minorities only had to accept what the majority put before them and then tried to influence those decisions and lessen the blows that they found themselves subjected to.

In conclusion, my concern is that there is suspicion, on the part of many thousands of South Africans, and many possible investors in South Africa, about what they are going to let them- selves in for if they invest in South Africa. One can say that one should forget about investors, as Mr Dullah Omar says, but I want to say that if we do not get investors in South Africa, the jobs will not be created in this land and one would go from poverty to more poverty then to even more poverty. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! I try to introduce one member at a time.

Dr R H DAVIES: Mr Chairperson, in my speech during the First Reading debate I tried to indicate the broad approach which had guided us in preparing Chapter 13, which deals with financial matters. Our point of departure i» that chapter was that a constitution, which is intended to last, should not attempt to prescribe the budgetary or economic policy framework in any detail.

A little earlier this evening we heard the hon Willie Botha arguing that he had proposed the insertion of a clause in the constitution requiring the level of State expenditure to be fixed at a certain percentage of GDP, and there were also other proposals suggesting that there should be a constitutional requirement that the Government balance its Budget.

The trouble with such proposals is that while they may reflect some fad or fashion which is currently in vogue in certain circles, they do not provide any basis for a constitution which is intended to last. It is true that balanced budgets are currently in vogue, but there is a great divergence between the proclamation of a principle and the actual implementation of a policy. The US Congress proclaimed its intention to balance its budget, but it has not yet reached that target, and even Newt Gingrich has not attempted to amend the constitution to require this.

The size of the deficit is a matter of policy. Determining what a sustainable deficit is is a complex matter which depends on analysing the interaction between a number of variables, including the size of the public debt, the rate of growth, the nature of the expenditure that the deficit is financing and so on. Rather than attempting to go this route, we have indicated that the constitution should outline general principles of sound financial management within which the progressive development of budgetary and economic policy should be based, and it is this which I believe we have largely achieved in this chapter. We have had to take cognisance of several constitutional principles, namely those in clauses 26, 27 and 29, and have thus provided for each level of the government to receive equitable shares of revenue collected nationally, and for the establishment, as independently functioning enti- ties, of the Finance and Fiscal Commission, the Reserve Bank and the Auditor-General.

We have gone further than we were required to by the principles, by making it a constitutional requirement that measures be prescribed to ensure both transparency and expenditure control in each sphere of government and that budgets promotes transparency, accountability and effective financial management. Our constitution in fact goes much further in this regard than many others do, in laying a foundation for sound financial management.

Apart from technical refinement, there is only one clause of this chapter which has undergone significant amendment since the First Reading, and it is to that that I would like to address a few remarks.

Clause 217 of the constitution deals with procurement by organs of state. In drafting this section we took account firstly of the fact that new models of government contracting and procurement were evolving, particularly in some of the most innovative development projects such as the Maputo Corridor Programme. We did not want, therefore, to prescribe a particular model or system of procurement, but wanted to ensure that the system which evolved was fair and equitable, competitive in the sense of allowing access by a number of potential contractors, and cost-effective. From the ANC side in particular, we were also concerned to ensure that the procurement system could be used to promote small business and advance the interests of persons or categories of persons who had been disadvantaged by apartheid discrimination, and thus not retain the situation where tendering was the exclusive preserve of those who had benefited from preference in the past, but were now strong enough not to need it any longer.

After a long debate about the possible insertion of particular words in the list of adjectives describing the system at the end of clause 217(1), we finally opted for the insertion of two new subsections, (2) and (3), which basically allow for the implementation of a procurement policy by organs of state which takes account of categories of preference in the allocation of contracts, and also allows one for account to be taken of the need to protect or advance the interests of persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.

Section 21(4) of the Transitional Arrangements in Schedule 6 provides for national legislation to be passed within three years, and provides that in the meantime this does not prevent the principles reflected in clause 217(2) from being implemented. I believe that we now have a provision in our constitution that will enable our Government to develop a policy on procurement that, while precluding nepotism or "baantjies vir boedes", will allow those disadvantaged by discrimination the opportunity, for the first time, to bid effectively for Government contracts.

Such policies have been significant in promoting a more equitable ownership structure in other countries such as Malaysia. Our new constitution thus gives us an additional instrument to use in the quest for greater equity, but we will need to be vigilant about certain international developments.

The optional protocol on tendering in the Marrakesh Agreement, which we did not sign, and the proposed Multilateral Investment Agreement which a number of Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development countries are now punting for inclusion in the new round of multilateral trade negotiations, would both require that foreign investors have treatment equivalent to that of all categories of nationals. We will need to ensure that we are not pushed in directions that will undercut us, and we need to gain a greater understanding internationally for the stance which we have taken in this section of the constitution.

There is one final observation with which I would like to conclude. There is in this constitution, and not least in Chapter 13, much that ought to be good news to the markets. All of this good news has, however, largely been discounted by the markets, which have already taken it into account. The markets are, however, likely to be extremely sensitive to any fallout from a failure to pass this constitution tomorrow. I hope that those who are now gathered in rooms elsewhere in this building are no longer seriously considering the possibility of voting down this constitution tomoirow. If there still are people who are thinking of taking us in this direction, I suggest that they look at the editorial in the Cape Times of this morning. The editorial says any vote of this sort –

. . . will send a clear message that reconciliation and the buildings of a new democracy since the 1994 elections have not gone very far. It will show that despite Bafana Bafana, the amaBokoBoko, the national cricket team, our new national nlag and President Nelson Mandela, South Africa is still essentially racially divided.

We simply cannot afford such a retrogressive step.

I would suggest that this message is unlikely to be lost on the currency markets. If there are people contemplating this course, it is to be hoped that wisdom will prevail and that later on this evening we will receive the message that that possibility has receded. If not. I believe that those who are contemplating taking us along this course must accept full responsibility for their actions and for the impact thereof on the economy of our country. [Applause.]

Mr PA MATTHEE: Mr Chairperson, Chapter 14 deals with many important provisions in respect of international law, charters of rights, self- determination, funding for political parties, the definition of organs of State and transitional arrangements.

Because of time limits, I will only deal briefly with two matters, namely section 247 of the interim Constitution, which we wanted to retain as part of the transitional arrangements, and item 13 of Annexure A of Schedule 6, which deals with the contents of section 43(b) of the interim Constitution, to the effect that "a person loses membership of a legislature. . . if that person ceases to be a member of the party which nominated that person as a member of the legislature".

The NP wanted the provisions of section 247 of the interim Constitution to be retained as part of the transitional arrangements in Schedule 6. Section 247 in essence provides for an obligation on the part of the Government to enter into bona fide negotiations before any rights, powers and functions of governing structures of schools, universities and technikons can be altered by national and provincial governments.

This section is the foundation for the negotiation process in education at school and tertiary levels. I can therefore see no reason whatsoever for being opposed to its inclusion as part of the transitional arrangements. A process for the conducting of bona fide negotiations in terms of section 247 has been proposed and accepted by the Cabinet, and we trust that they will carry out their obligations in this regard.

l now come to the provisions of section 43(b) of the present Constitution, which is relevant to every member of this Parliament as far as I am concerned. We were of the opinion that it should die a natural death and that a free mandate should be recognised in terms of the new constitution.

Any purpose that this could have served in our opinion falls away upon the adoption of the new constitution. After the adoption of the new constitution a provision such as section 43(b) can definitely no longer be justified from the democratic point of view. In terms of the theory of a free mandate, which we advocate, each public representative is bound not only to the mandate from his or her particular voters, but also to act according to his or her conscience and in the national interest in performing his or her functions.

The imperative mandate theory, on the other hand, as now contained in item 23(2)(a) of Schedule 6, entails that each one of us acts only in the interest of that section of the community that elected him or her, and that he or she represents them against the rest of the community or the Government, and that they are therefore bound to their mandates.

The free mandate theory is accepted as a democratic principle throughout the world. In certain constitutions, for instance the German and Dutch constitutions, there is even a specific commitment to this principle. The imperative mandate theory is now only recognised formally in a few countries.

In brief, the imperative mandate theory is only recognised in a few countries. The imperative mandate theory is not recognised in the modem democracy. It is definitely not in line with democratic points of departure and it is an insult to the integrity and judgment of all members of Parliament. This definitely should not be included in the South African constitution.

The consequence of this provision is that it formally takes the determination of the member- ship of Parliament out of the hands of the voters and places it in the hands of parties. This is a serious attack on the democratic principle of representation and is at least prima facie in conflict with Constitutional Principle VIII, in which the principle of representative government is entrenched. This is also prima facie in conflict with various provisions of the Bill of Rights as contained in Chapter 2 of the new constitution.

Mr Y I CARRIM: Mr Chairperson, comrades, friends, as our fledgling nonracial democracy evolves, people's ethnic, racial and national identities are undergoing change and being reshaped. The transition has given impetus, on the one hand, to the evolution of a broad, nonracial national identity and, on the other hand, to the emergence of ethnic and racial identities in new forms.

Exactly how these two processes are to be reconciled constitutes a major challenge for our transition. While the prospects for national unity and been better , it is also clear that the ethnic and racial identities of the apartheid era cannot be attributed solely to social engineering from above and that their resilience, in new forms, is going to pose challenges to the emergence of a broader South African national identity.

Given the social diversity, related material in- equalities and history of conflict in our country, it is obvious that a sense of South African nation- hood will emerge only very gradually. It cannot be forced from above, but nor will it, on the other hand, emerge spontaneously. It has to be encouraged gradually, sensibly and sensitively. The State, civil society and individuals all have a role to play. It is in this context that the provision in the Constitution for the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities has to be understood.

A nation cannot be built out of thin air. It has to be forged on the basis of the existing ethnic identities that pervade a country. Unlike racial, ie biologically based, identities, ethnic, ie culturally based, identities are not inherently in conflict with nation-building. It is when ethnicity is politicised, ie when it is mobilised as a means of securing economic and political goals, that it is divisive and undermines nation-building.

So a South African nationhood will have to build on the positive and harmonious aspects of the ethnic identities of all our people. It is important to recognise that people have multiple identities and that these identities can be reconciled with each other. One can, for example, be Zulu, African, Black and South African. There is nothing inherently conflictual about this. The challenge before our democracy is, in fact, to provide the space for people to express their multiple identities in a way that fosters the evolution of a South African national identity. It is this challenge that the Commission for the Pro- motion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities has to confront and adequately respond to.

It has to promote religious, cultural and linguistic expression in a way that enhances, and does not undermine, nation-building. If it approaches its responsibilities appropriately, the commission can be an invaluable mechanism to provide for both national unity and cultural diversity in a mutually reinforcing way. If, on the other hand, it loses sight of the imperatives of national unity and provides for unbridled expression of cultural diversity, the commission will disunite people and corrode their sense of South Africanness.

No doubt legislation will follow, but perhaps one can raise few useful issues. One of the functions of the commission is defined, in clause 185(l)(c), as-

. . to recommend the establishment or recognition, in accordance with national legislation, of a cultural or other council or councils for a community or communities in South Africa.

We should guard against the creation of separate, independent cultural councils for each community. We should rather have a single council in which the different communities, however they are defined, are represented. By interacting in the same forum the different communities will get to know each other better and will develop mutual respect. They will have the opportunity to mediate their differences. It is hoped that they will also realise that whatever their cultural differences, they share a broad core of values, and in this way a sense of South Africanness can be fostered. It will also, of course, be less costly to have a single council. On the other hand, separate councils will serve to isolate the communities from each other, fossilise their ethnic identities and create unnecessary suspicion and competition amongst them.

No doubt there are other issues that will have to be addressed. How will these ethnic communities be identified? What criteria will be used to decide which communities qualify for participation in a cultural council? A plethora of small, spurious ethnic communities could sprout overnight in all their divisiveness, and the council has to guard strenuously against encouraging this. We have to be very clear. This council should not serve to manufacture these ethnic communities.

No doubt another matter that will have to be addressed is whether the council exists at national level or whether it also has provincial and local structures, and what its precise relationship with government at these levels should be.

It must also be clear that it is ethnic, not racial, communities that will qualify. In fact, by providing appropriate space for the expression of ethnicity, the aim would be to erode racial identities. If Afrikaners were to qualify for participation in a cultural council on linguistic grounds, for example, this would mean that all Afrikaans speakers, irrespective of race, would have to be represented. Similarly, the Indian community would not qualify on racial grounds, but a Muslim or Hindu community could qualify, irrespective of race

To the extent that claims for ethnic expression are legitimate, they are often a part of human rights, and so the commission will have to work closely with the Human Rights Commission. The composition of the commission will be crucial. Politicians who have a vested interest in mobilising ethnicity should, as far as possible, be excluded from participation in the commission. We cannot have these ethnic entrepreneurs.

Of course, an overwhelming concern is that however progressive the commission is, it will ultimately serve to entrench ethnic identities and not contribute to the evolution of a broader South African national identity.

Of particular concern is the role of the cultural council. There has to be widespread consultation on this with the public, and very careful consideration should be given to the exact role of both the commission and the council.

Ultimately both the commission and the council should ideally serve to erode racial identities and provide expression for ethnicity in a way that contributes to the evolution of a broader South African national identity. The council in particular should not become a haven for ethnic entrepreneurs who subsist on the entrenchment of a divisive ethnicity that persistently undermines the sense of a South African national identity.

As we build respect and trust amongst ourselves as South Africans, and as we reduce very crucially the material inequalities that divide us, so the role of the commission and the council will recede in significance.

Mr J SELFE: Mr Chairperson, I would like to devote some comments this evening to Chapter 11 of the constitution, which deals with security services. This debate on the constitution takes place against the harrowing backdrop of the evidence that is being given before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Day by day we hear accounts of what happened in the past when the security forces were not properly controlled.

The discussions in Theme Committee 6(4) and in the multilaterals which followed focused a great deal on our history and the abuses that we have lived through. All of us, across party lines, who were engaged in these discussions were united in the determination that similar abuses should never recur.

I would like to pay tribute to those engaged in those discussions for the sense of reality that they brought to bear on the discussions. It is as a result of the agreements that were reached on these forums that the security chapter requires maxi- mum disclosure and accountability to Parliament on the part of the defence and the intelligence services and, in the case of the Police Service, to the provincial legislatures and to the public they serve.

Never again will our Defence Force be allowed to destabilise our subcontinent. Never again will mercenaries be allowed to sully our national reputation. Never again will our security services be committed to set up front organisations with vague mandates to operate as deniable Rambos. Never again will our intelligence services be allowed to spy on and terrorise political opponents of the Government of the day-that is, unless we let them.

In this constitution we have created oversight mechanisms and we have put in place checks and balances. However, these constitutional mechanisms are only as effective as the will to make them succeed and that depends on the collective commitment of parliamentarians to transparency and accountability, not only now when the abuses of the past are fresh in our memories, but also in the future.

Crime continues to be the scourge of our society and one of the biggest destabilising factors in our fledgling democracy. Unless we are able to harness all the law-enforcement resources to the end of combating crime, we will not stamp it out. For this reason we welcome the recognition that the constitution provides of the role that municipal policing can and should play in crime prevention. All over the country municipal law-enforcement officers currently employed chiefly to supervise municipal by-laws could be used creatively in the fight against crime.

We hope that the structures that we have created will allow our security services to operate in the interests of all South Africans in the fight against poverty, against crime and for peace. [Applause.]

Ms E GANDHI: Mr Chairperson, comrades and hon members, I want to congratulate the Chair- person and the Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly and their team on the outstanding work done not only in producing an outstanding constitution-which I think we are all going to be very proud of-but also on making it truly a people's constitution.

I am particularly interested in the clause concerning the right to life which I see has been included in the Bill of Rights. I believe that entrenching this clause in our constitution indicates the new ethos. The lack of respect for life in the past is very painstakingly revealed in the testimony being given at this stage before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The respect for life that we are now pledging shows our commitment to transformation. It is an affirmation that never again will there be killing, torture, imprisonment without trial, banishment and discrimination on the grounds of race and gender in this country.

The right to life is also a basic human right, and one which is linked closely to the abolition of the death sentence. While I know that many among us believe that the death sentence should be reintroduced, I believe that, like many other people who have been exposed to literature on this and to the facts about the death penalty, they will change their minds.

I will try this evening to introduce the topic, and I hope that people will later take the trouble to read a book called When the State Kills, which has been produced by Amnesty International. Perhaps, as a result of reading this book, we will change our minds. According to studies quoted in this book, it is clear that there is very little correlation between the abolition of capital punishment and the rate of crime. Studies in many countries have proved this. More than 40% of the countries of the world have already abolished capital punishment. Other countries are looking at how to impose controls over its use.

Many countries have even found that the public outcry for the imposition of the death penalty deflects attention from the broader causes of crime. In fact. Bowers and Pierce, criminologists in the USA, have this to say: The way we have carried out executions historically in the United States appears to have contributed slightly, but significantly, to the increase in homicides.

So in fact, capital punishment is not a deterrent to, but may even be a cause of crime. Studies in Canada, Australia, Jamaica and many other countries substantiate the fact that the rate of crime has nothing to do with the imposition or otherwise of capital punishment.

Let us look at what this does to our own people. The psychosocial effect on the executioners and others who have to carry out the act of killing a human being is devastating.

In Sri Lanka, for instance, a doctor who was required to provide medical care to those on death row and to certify those hanged to be dead, described the horror of his job. He spoke of a person who was hanged and how the body wriggled when the trap door was opened. The heartbeats were rapid and then became steadily slower and slower until they stopped. It took many long minutes before the person could actually be proclaimed dead. The doctor continues to live in guilt and outrage at the brutality of the act of killing.

Interviews with hangmen and other executioners reveal a similar tale of psychosocial devastation. To be a human witness to the horror of taking a person to be killed and actually performing the act leaves a person brutalised. These stories have to be heard by those who clamour for the death penalty to be reintroduced.

The effect on those on death row is also devastating. Many of our own comrades have been exposed to the experience of living for months in the shadow of death-die Sharpeville Six, for instance. They have a sad tale to tell about those who face life in those cells.

I will quote stories of other countries. For instance, the New York Times reported on an execution and said the following:

The first two-minute charge of electricity ap- plied at 12:18 am failed to kill the person and he struggled for breath for eight minutes before a second charge was applied.

Let me tell a story from Japan of a person who was released from death row. He related that the nearer the execution date came, the less cheerful the condemned person became. He attended neither exercise nor prayer and kept on crying.

Looking at him closely, I was dragged into the fear of death more and more. So I could neither eat nor sleep. Even when I did my exercises, I did not feel that my feet stamped on the ground. I felt as if I was a living wax figure.

Capital punishment is inhuman, no matter how it is inflicted. It is the death of a person who knows that he is going to be killed and has to live in the shadow of death. It is a death which is as painful as the most gruesome torture. In fact, Karl Marx, who I believe some people think was a heathen, said this, and I quote:

A state of society is that which knows of no better instrument for its own defence than the hanged man, and which proclaims its own brutality as external law.

Let us look at whether capital punishment is just. Many eminent jurists do not believe that capital punishment is just, because it is so final. An eminent Indian jurist. Justice Bagwathi, has proclaimed that capital punishment is not a just method. [Time expired.]

Dr M E TSHABALALA: Mr Chairperson, it is a proud moment indeed to be given the opportunity to participate in this debate. Few parliamentarians in any era can say that they were party to the creation of the legal and political framework for their countries. Many have described this constitution before us today as the birth certificate of the new South Africa. However, I believe it to be much more. It is the passport for a new society, bestowing a sense of membership, of belonging and of collective security.

This is not an awards ceremony, but it would be remiss of me not to congratulate two bodies of people. The first is the Constitutional Committee, led by the commitment and intelligence of the Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly. The committee's sleepless nights have been a tribute to its determination to present to this Chamber the best possible version of the constitution. The second is the South African people, some two million of whom rose to the challenge of participating actively in the drafting of this momentous constitution.

I make my comments today as a doctor and as a woman. It gives me great pride that human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms should constitute the first clause of the first section of our constitution. In improving the quality of life of all our citizens, lifting people out of poverty and equipping them to attain a state of wellbeing, there cannot be a more important starting point.

We must make it very clear that human rights are not just a vertical application regulating the relationship between state and citizen. They apply equally to our dealings with each other as fellow South Africans. It is only through rigorous horizontal application of these rights that we can create a rich culture of respect and human decency for all.

No change from the interim Constitution can be more welcome than the expansion of the basic health rights of every citizen. Clause 27 must form the framework within which all of us involved in health services delivery conceptualise and carry out our work.

The obligation of the State to take measures to achieve the realisation of health rights is essential. However, we must remain wary of the subjective term "reasonable measures". Let there be no doubt that different citizens will have varying interpretations of this phrase, on how much is too little, how much is enough, how much is too much, where the floor is and where the ceiling is. Through access to information and consultation, we--that is the South African people as a whole, and not just the markets or bureaucracy-must ensure that we hold Government to account in this regard.

As we know, improving the health of our people and giving them the means to protect their own health is a task which crosses all the boundaries of policy within which we operate. As a health specialist, therefore, I welcome all those clauses of the Bill which will help us to achieve this aim, from children's rights to the rights of access to information, housing, education and to life.

I -wish, however, to stress the importance of the specific enshrining of reproductive rights in Con- Junction with clause 12, which enshrines freedom and security of the person. This makes the constitution a landmark for the women of this country. For the first time bodily and psychological integrity and wellbeing are protected by our State. Security of the person offers women protection against the physical and emotional abuse which so many suffer from. It is incumbent upon all of us, especially on women, to speak out and to use the political processes, the Public Protector and the Commission for Gender Equality, to put a stop to this shameful aspect of our society.

It is in this context that we welcome the increased scope and powers of the committees provided in clauses 56 and 73 and urge women and women's organisations to utilise these provisions to make their voices heard in our Parliament.

One further issue affecting the lives of millions of women deserves particular mention, namely the question of succession and inheritance. Let it be quite clear that the basic equality enshrined in our constitution overrides the details of contractual marriages which subordinate women and make them secondary citizens. Those days are over. We demand equality and respect, and on the basis of the new Bill of Rights we shall fight for them.

We must always remember, of course, that rights are not absolute and must be asserted in a relative context. Nevertheless the call should go out to the women of South Africa that they are now empowered to take control of their lives and their bodies. The status of women in this country rests not only in equality before the law, but in the duty of the State to ensure that all citizens are free to enjoy the rights accorded to them in this constitution. As women it is not enough to state our rights. We must nurture and enforce them as well.

This demands vigilance, especially in monitoring and enforcing affirmative action and undiscriminatory legislation. Affirmative action is not simply a matter of race, but of addressing need and eliminating subordination of any group. In the light of the need for vigilance I call on the women of South Africa to note clause 59 of our constitution regarding public involvement in the legislative process. There can be few provisions which it is more important to nurture if we are to ensure that the constitution is self-supporting.

Women have fought long and hard for the equality and opportunity which are contained in this constitution. Many of our sisters have suffered untold hardship and today all of us, women and men, should celebrate the new horizon which beckons South African women. I hope that one day when our children's children look back at the process which has occupied us for the past two years, they will sense from the comments made today the excitement that we all feel. I hope too that they will understand that this stems only in part from our history and the sense of a job well done.

Above all else our excitement, pride, determination and joy are born from the anticipation that our descendants will be looking back from a country based on freedom, equality, individual wellbeing and happiness. We should never forget our colleagues and comrades who died to bring freedom to country. We remember them with sadness and respect. Today we celebrate the laying of the foundation stone for our new society, happy in the knowledge that their struggle was not in vain.

I wish to end by congratulating all who have played their part in bringing this Bill before us. It is a wonderful new society but it remains on paper. Let us without delay turn the Bill into an Act and words into reality.

Mr L M GREEN: Mr Chairperson, the ACDP supports in principle the inclusion of a justiciable Bill of Rights in the new constitution. To be enforced, every human right must have a corresponding duty. The Bible usually refers to fundamental rights in terms of their corresponding duties. For example the sixth commandment says in Exodus 20:12, "Thou shalt not murder".

An HON MEMBER: No, it says: "Thou shalt not kill."

Mr L M GREEN: Yes, but it means murder, if you read the Bible correctly.

This is saying, in other words, that everyone has the right to life. This is exactly what the Bible is saying. However, the right to life which should be protected by the State becomes meaningless if the State is incapable of reducing the level of violent crime in South Africa.

There is no right to life for 12 000 to 15 000 innocent' people who are executed annually in their homes, in places where they work and even in their motorcars while they are being hijacked. When criminals who perpetrate these killings of up to 15 000 people every year are caught and are given a fair trial and found guilty, the constitution guarantees the right to life of those criminals who have no respect for the life of others. The Word of God says, in Numbers 35:32, and I quote:

Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.

Do not pollute the land where you are. Blood- shed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.

The right to life cannot be enforced properly and given to innocent members of society without a mechanism to prevent others from violating it.

The death penalty has not been abolished for 15 000 innocent South Africans who die every year. The only thing that has happened is that the executioners have become the godless criminals who do not fear our judiciary. That is the only thing that has happened. Clause 11, referring to the right to life, as it stands is too vague, in that it fails to address crucial issues relating to abortion, to euthanasia, infanticide and the death penalty. These are left instead for the Constitutional Court to decide. As it stands, the clause is open to subjective secular humanist interpretation based on foreign case law as prescribed by clause 39(1)(c), which deals with the interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

Like Pontius Pilate in the Bible, the negotiating parties are attempting to wash their hands of a crucial moral issue, namely the right to life of the innocent unborn person. In the same way that Pilate avoided his moral responsibility to uphold the right to life of an innocent man and asked the crowd to decide, so some of our political leaders are attempting to evade their responsibility to protect the innocent unborn child by referring those issues to the Constitutional Court. The need to use explicit, detailed wording in defining the right to life has become more important as a result of the conflict between biblical and secular humanist social values.

The Christian viewpoint is that people are made in the image of God. Therefore their lives have value, irrespective of whether they are in or out of the womb, healthy or unhealthy, useful or redundant to society, elderly or young. This right cannot be used to protect criminals who are guilty of serious offences such as murder, from being executed after due process of law.

Clause 12(2)(a), which gives the right to bodily and psychological integrity, read together with clause 27(1)(a), which provides the right to have access to health care services, but with an emphasis on the access to reproductive health care, is an obvious legitimisation of abortion on demand. It is therefore obvious that the Constitutional Court will not protect the life of the unborn child while these clauses remain in the constitution.

Let me now turn to the equality clause, which is clause 9. While the general purpose of subclause 3 is supported by the ACDP, we have strong objections to the inclusion of the words "sexual orientation", which is aimed at giving a lifestyle of homosexuality and lesbianism constitutional recognition. Possible implications must be deduced from foreign case law. An examination of homosexual rights in Canada, America and the Netherlands, which are usually phrased in a similar way to our own law, has shown that such special sexual orientation rights do not simply protect the rights of homosexuals, but are also used to actively promote homosexuality and to discriminate against citizens who do not agree with such behaviour.

A human rights commission in the state of New York in the United States has the power to fine or to jail citizens who display any form of public prejudice against homosexuals. The problem of homosexual organisations using anti-discrimination legislation to advance their own agenda, which is exactly what is being done with clause 9(3), has become so serious that in 1992 the state of Colorado in the United States passed the following constitutional amendment:

Section 30(b). No protected status based on homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation.

This is what has happened in the United States.

The Organisation for Lesbian and Gay Activists, which is an organisation called Olga, has lobbied political parties for the inclusion of the words "sexual orientation" in the constitution, and they hope that this clause will lead to the following: Firstly, to legislate in favour of consenting sodom. Secondly, to legalise homosexual marriages, which will have the same pension, taxation, medical aid, housing and other social and economic benefits as other marriages. Thirdly, to allow homosexuals to adopt children. Fourthly, to include pro-homosexual sex education in State school curricula, even if parents object to it. (Interjections.] Fifthly, to make teachings which label homosexuality as immoral, illegal. Sixthly, to allow homosexual school teachers to be open about their lifestyle. Seventhly, to make speaking against homosexuality illegal in the media, whether one is a Muslim or a Christian. Eighthly, to make it illegal to excommunicate an unrepentant homosexual from a church or a mosque, or to exclude homosexuals from the ministry.

The ninth point is to make it illegal to teach that homosexuality is sinful, and this is exactly the reason why clause 9(3) has been introduced and why the sexual orientation clause is being sup- ported by the gay movement. Clause 9(4) obliges the State to pass legislation to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination and Clause 9(5) declares all forms of discrimination on grounds listed under 9(3) as being unfair, unless proved to be the contrary; thus the State is required to pass homosexual rights legislation against the wishes of the majority of people who do not want that.

The Bible teaches that homosexuality and lesbianism are sins which people voluntarily choose to commit and that they are not born with sexual orientation. The book of Romans, chapter I, verse 26 says: Even their women exchange natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women...

[Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Does the hon member wish to ask a question or raise a point of order?

Mr M W MFEBE: Mr Chairperson, will the hon member take a question?

Mr L M GREEN: I will give an answer, but not during my speech.

Mr M W MFEBE: It will be quick. Sir.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: No, the member does not have sufficient time to take questions.

Mr L M GREEN: The Bible also teaches that homosexuality does not have to be a permanent condition but that, like other sins, it can be forgiven and it can be overcome by repentance with faith in Christ. In I Corinthians 6:9, it says:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual . . . will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ...

This means that there is a possibility for homosexuals to leave their sinful way of life. [Interjections.] It is not a permanent condition.

In conclusion, our constitution entrenches and condones that the Bible proclaims to be sin. All of us have a choice to make. If we vote for the constitution as it stands, we undermine the word of G6d and we rebel against the law of God. [Interjections.] There is another option, and it is an option which the ACDP favours. [Interjections.] We want to adopt a constitution. We want to accept a constitution, but it is important that a few clauses in the constitution be brought into line with the word of God, especially the one that has to do with sexual orientation.

As Christians, in conclusion, we have a covenant with God, and any other covenant we make, including accepting this new constitution, can only be undertaken if it does not undermine our existing covenant with God.

Dr T G ALANT: Mr Chairperson, in my short speech I want to draw attention to Chapter 13 of the draft constitution which deals with finance.

I want to say that Chapter 13 is the result of the dedicated effort of four members from three political parties, namely, the ANC, the DP and the NP. On this occasion, I wish to express my appreciation to Minister Alee Erwin and Dr Rob Davies from the ANC and Mr Ken Andrew from the DP for their constructive co-operation in the formulation of this chapter, as well as the sections in other chapters dealing with money Bills and the Auditor-General.

I want to say that the NP is fully satisfied with the contents of Chapter 13. Chapter 13 does not deal with economic policy. That is the privilege of the government of the day. Chapter 13 defines a framework for the financial arrangements in all spheres of government and between these spheres.

Section 214 can be regarded as one of the most important sections in the constitution. Its origin is Constitutional Principle XXVI and the first part deals with the equitable division of revenue raised nationally. Firstly, it provides for the equitable division of this revenue among the three spheres of government. It thereafter deals with the determination of each province's equitable share of the provincial share of the revenue. Lastly, it refers to other allocations to provinces, local government and municipalities from the national Government's share of the revenue.

The second part of section 214 deals with the role of the Financial and Fiscal Commission and the factors that have to be taken into account in the determination of the equitable share of revenue and any other allocations from the national Government share.

Section 217 deals with the procurement of goods and services by organs of State and specifically makes provision for procurement preferences in favour of persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by previous unfair discrimination. Such a provision in a national procurement system should contribute to the economic empowerment of disadvantaged persons. We in the NP strongly support it, in fact we formulated this clause.

Clauses 228 and 229 deal with provincial taxes and municipal rates and taxes respectively. The NP and the DP would have preferred the inclusion of a short list of the exclusive provincial and municipal taxes. However, we eventually agreed to the clauses as they appear in the draft constitution before the Constitutional Assembly.

The draft constitution envisages a new govern- mental dispensation in the Republic of South Africa in which much more emphasis will be placed on the local government sphere. The chapter on finance describes the intergovernmental fiscal relations aimed at ensuring the viability of local government. It is my sincere hope that the framework for governmental and intergovernmental fiscal relations provided for in Chapter 13 of the draft constitution will contribute to the success of our rainbow nation.

Mr S J LEEUW: Mr Chairperson, I think it is my privilege to be among those given the opportunity to draw up and adopt the supreme law of our country. Many, many years ago our forebears had a vision of a united, nonracial and democratic nation. Despite the difficulties of that time, they tried to share their vision with the forefathers of members on my left, but in vein. Forty-three years later, or forty-one years ago, the same thing was tried, but it could still not succeed. Today, 7 May 1996, our forebears on both sides have once again provided us with an opportunity to share a common vision. It is up to them to make a difference to the past. I am aware that they will make. a difference this time. I welcome that.

It has been, and still is, the ANC's approach to adopt a constitution for all, not only for some. After that momentous event, they will now, together with us, be called Africans, Afrikaners, ma-Afrika. The dictionaries must be changed to give a new definition of who we are.

I will not dwell much longer on the constitution as it stands because it satisfies what has been my wish, the wish of my organisation and the wish of the people of South Africa. In the few minutes given to me, I would like to quote Comrade 0 R Tambo, one of the great leaders of our organisation, who is no more. Addressing a consultative conference in 1990, he said:

We, too, are finally seeing the light at the end of a long and dark tunnel. Yes, we are at the crossroads where the future is fusing with the present. It is us, the generation gathered here in this hall. Black and White that history has singled out to represent the aspirations of generations past and generations still to come. We can uphold and defend their trust in us. This is the magnitude of the task we face, the real challenge that the delegates to this conference must meet without fail.

I fully agree with the words of that great leader who is no more.

In conclusion I would like to highlight a few things which bother me this evening. Under clause 10, Human Dignity, the words that I find missing are: " . .. respect among the people, unless stipulated somewhere else". In clause 23, Labour Relations, there is ambiguity in subclause (5). Clause 39(4) is an unnecessary provision, because Schedule 6 provides for transitional arrangements.

I remember what my grandmother said in Setswana:

Ke a bona gore rona batho baAfrika gompieno ie rona re motlotlo go ka ipitsa Ma-Afrika. Le gale aw KC sa se ilseng Kegore aa moetapele yo o re ntshitseng mo bokgobeng, ebong Nelson Mandela, o a itse kwa madi a diriwang teng?

[I can see that today, we the people of Africa are proud to be called Africans. But what I am not sure of is whether the leader who freed us from slavery. Nelson Mandela, knows where money is made.]

Mr L M MTI: Mr Chairperson, the fielding of Boy Geldenhuys as the NP's first speaker in yesterday's debate has once again demonstrated their political bankruptcy and insensitivity. ANC speakers in the CC debates last week argued that the NP deadlocked on the education, lockout and property clauses because they wanted to hang on to the gains of apartheid and keep the apartheid files burning. [Interjections.] Those members must not say no.

What better proof could they have given us of the truth of these allegations than to use Mr Geldenhuys as their frontrunner in this debate?

I speak today on behalf of the ANC comrades who worked in Theme Subcommittee 6.4, under the capable chairpersonship of Comrade Jenny Schieiner, who energetically and purposefully steered the process to the end. We pooled our ideas and produced this collective input.

I will concentrate on Chapter 11 of the Bill, the chapter which deals with the security apparatus. We pride ourselves on having charted a way forward, not only for this country, but also for the rest of those democratic countries which want to ensure that the security services operate within set guidelines. Nowhere in the world has a people been bold enough to set out guiding principles for security services in a constitution. We would like to think that future generations will look back on this chapter as an inspired inclusion in the constitution.

For the ANC members in subcommittee 6.4, our starting point was the horrendous role that was played by the security forces of this country in the past. For many of us this was not abstract history, but a history that we lived. It is a history which is at present being related, in all its brutality, to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Our man- date and objective was therefore to ensure that our country would never, never again be subjected to security services that are not only above the law, but also above the constitution and the Government.

The ANC's perspective on security, peace and stability that has been presented to the Constitutional Assembly has its roots in our vision of a nonracial, nonsexist and democratic South Africa, free from oppressive colonisers, free from want, and free from the gross inequalities between the rich and the poor that our country has known. We in the ANC have always argued that poverty and the denial of rights to vote and human rights, as well as basic social needs, lead to instability and insecurity.

The process of the Constitutional Assembly's work has deepened our understanding of this and allowed us to develop this perspective into the framework for democratising civil-military relations that-we find in Chapter 11. It-has also informed our approach as an organisation that preventing the atrocities of the past from happening again is not merely done through the transformation of the security services. The checks and balances lie in a new system of justice, a new role of active monitoring and accountability to Parliament and the executive, the Bill of Rights, etc. Read as a whole, this new constitution is a package to prevent a return to the past and a vehicle to move South Africa forward to new and democratic heights.

Our objective in relation to Chapter 11 was also influenced by an analysis of threats facing our country, balanced against the priorities of the present Government. The threat that apartheid South Africa faced from its own citizens and the liberation movement has been substantially reduced. Globally, the climate has changed significantly to decrease the potential threats from outside this land. It is hard to believe that the Ministry of Defence under the NP regime had more land at its disposal than the Ministries of Land Affairs and Agriculture combined, while millions of our people remained homeless and landless. The priorities of the RDP and the new Government, read with the constitution's governing principles on security, make this imbalance a thing of the past.

The end to the aggression perpetuated by the security forces of this country against neighbouring countries and the foreign policy of friendship and good neighbourliness, have similarly shifted the terrain of the security services' roles.

The constitution also addresses the extent to which our country had become the main supplier of mercenaries on the whole continent. As a governing principle, it directly limits the participation of citizens in armed conflict, except in the defence force deployed by the President, or in other legitimate manners to be defined in national legislation.

We envisage a South Africa in which there are no private armies, no plethora of security companies and armed organisations of dubious repute, such as exist currently, and no mercenary organisation recruiting ex-security force members to export violence and bloodshed to other parts of our continent and our world. This, however, requires urgent legislative attention to cover those legitimate areas of external involvement in peacekeeping and solidarity roles, while prohibiting the crimes of mercenaries.

We have, furthermore, to ensure that never again will the security forces be the political instrument of any particular party. Clause 199(7) states that neither the security services nor any of their members may, in the performance of their functions, prejudice a political party interest that is legitimate in terms of the constitution.

Clause 198 commits the executive and Parliament to take full responsibility for national security. The security services are tools of the Government in realising national security, which must reflect the resolve of all South Africans as individuals and as a nation.

The significance of clause 199(5) is that members of the security services will be the only people in the country who are trained specifically in domestic, international and constitutional law, and required to act within those parameters at all times. This should go a long way in equipping the members of the services to refuse to obey manifestly illegal orders, to be able to understand their role in the protection of all the residents of the country, and not to indulge in sycophantic loyalty to the government of the day. Their loyalty is to the constitution, subject to the law and in the service of the people of South Africa. This chapter is rigid in terms of principle but sufficiently flexible to permit policy debate and reviews to continue and develop without closing doors to proper consideration of options.

The final version of the section on police has struck a delicate balance between the need for a single and clear command line within an effective police service and co-operative government to facilitate community policing. We have success- fully accommodated extensive liaison and communication between levels of government, adding in a sense another layer of checks and balances over the executive, but without removing the executive responsibility of the Cabinet members, an ultimate accountability for the actions of the police service.

The mandate that we received from the ANC constitutional conference, which is contained in our document entitled Building a United Nation, has largely been fulfilled in the contents of this chapter. In the process of debate and negotiations, some proposals have been excluded and others have been modified. Our mandated position to ensure a principled treatment of the security services in the new constitution has been achieved.

Prof D C DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, I do not think anyone in the Assembly is listening any- more. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! You are not allowed to make that statement. I am listening. [Laughter.] You may proceed.

Prof D C DU TOIT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Hon members, this morning I sat in a room in which Deputy President Thabo Mbeki was present. We discussed a certain section, and Deputy President Mbeki asked a question on the section which I think we have not asked enough questions on. He just asked this simple question: "What does this section mean politically?" [Interjections.] It was a certain section; hon members are not allowed to know about that. [Interjections.]

We have not asked this question enough about this constitution, the final one that we have written. What does it mean politically? We can only answer that question if we ask : What is this constitution going to do? What will the future hold under this constitution? To answer the question as to where we are headed in the future with this Constitution in our hands-I think we almost have it in our hands- there is only one place that we can go. We always say this country was liberated on 27 April 1974. [Interjections.] In 1994, I am sorry. Yes, it has been liberated. What this constitution must now do for us, is to drive this country to what is called a fundamental liberation.

It is one thing to have been liberated and to formally get into structures and get one's hands on the levers of government, and quite another to really, fundamentally, liberate the people in this country. I do not think we have succeeded yet. We are working on it, and this constitution is just an instrument. We have a major instrument to really and fundamentally liberate the people at grass- roots level in this country. I really believe that we will succeed with this constitution.

If one looks at the time, the era in which we live now, and try to project into the future, one will see that the diagnosis of this time we live in is not very good.

It is a time of crisis in history, one crisis after another. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Yes, it is true. Go and look at what is going on in KwaZulu- Natal. This constitution should be able to handle crises such as those. We have seemingly become used to crises. Crises are widespread, they are global, they take place throughout the world, and they are ongoing. Sometimes I think they cannot be stabilised any longer.

And the responses to these crises are becoming subjective. People are in a kind of an end-of-the- century mood, as if time is running out. Some people are subdued, others flip out like the hon Jannie Momberg is doing at the moment. [Interjections.] Thanks for that, Jannie. However, what our constitution must do is bring reason. It must bring drive. It must actually create a conversation in this country, a discourse in the ranks of Government, in the different spheres of government and with society at large. I would hope that we could call this constitution a communication constitution, a speak-to-each-other constitution, a great conversation which must drive us forward in South Africa.

What are the requirements for having this constitution successfully implemented? I will just make two obseravtions. [Interjections]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Older! I am still listening.

Prof D C DU TOIT: You are still listening? Thank you, Mr Chairperson. A constitution is just a piece of paper with black and white letters on it. We need two things in order to implement this constitution. [Interjections.] Would members please listen to this because it is very important. [Interjections.]

Thanks for the interest. [Interjections.] I am trying my level best.

Firstly, the constitution needs legitimate people in the Government. The Senate is going to be transformed into the new Council of Provinces. [Interjections ]

No, man, give me a chance. Those members must listen to this, then they will know why they have no legitimacy.

The delegates of our new Council of Provinces must have legitimacy. They will have legitimacy if they are really fully empowered to represent their provinces. However, then they must be used-if I may use that word-in the right way by the provinces, the premiers and the legislatures in the provinces. They must really be ambassadors of their provinces. Legitimacy is the main requirement.

Secondly, what we need for this constitution to work well in the future is good leadership. We need leadership of a high calibre, leadership of a truly collective and democratic nature which will be able to steer this country through these extremely difficult tasks we are facing.

What I am saying is that the context in which this constitution must operate in the future is a very serious one. There is a climate of resentfulness which we must overcome, otherwise the new era into which we are going will be a. very daunting one. The first problem which this constitution must solve is that of the constitutional dilemma in KwaZulu-Natal. [Interjections.]

l have only spoken for one minute. [Interjections.] I have another two minutes left.

The constitution will have to deliver under conditions of severe pressure in this country. The pressures to which the new delegates to the Council of Provinces will be subjected are going to be very heavy. [Interjections.]

No, not at all. I follow leaders and I follow ideas, and I am faithful to them. [Interjections.] I never followed Verwoerd, thank you! [Laughter.]

What I am saying is that the constitution must have areas-and it has them-in which we have to work things out. There is a very great deal of legislation that is needed to give effect to this constitution. It will occupy the minds of the members of this Parliament for quite a consider- able time, and it is going to be very difficult to complete that task. However, in the end I think this constitution is really the event of our time. It is interwoven with the interests of the whole of mankind in this country. What we have done, all of us together, will be remembered, because no single person can claim a clause or a word in this constitution. No single person is victorious. This event will be remembered by people in faraway corners of the world, who will also perhaps ask for renewed attempts, in their countries, at devising constitutions of this kind. South Africa may yet inspire others. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Thank you very much, Prof Du Toit. Ladies and gentlemen, I have an announcement to make, and in doing so I would like to explain something.

We have completed the speakers' list. However, the speakers engaged in the Constitutional Committee have not, of course, participated in this debate. We cannot adjourn and complete our business until we have received the report of the Constitutional Committee because we cannot continue with our work tomorrow unless we have completed the second stage, which we have to do tonight.

I want to make the following suggestion, ie that we suspend business for 15 minutes. We will resume at say 21:50. This will give me an opportunity to consult with Mr Ramaphosa who is chairing the Constitutional Committee in the Old Assembly Chamber, and I will then report back to hon members. Hopefully they will then have completed their business and will be joining us. [Interjections.] We must conclude our business tonight if we want the constitution to be adopted tomorrow. That is so. [Interjections.] I will report back at 21:50.

Business suspended at 21:32 and resumed at 21:50.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Ladies and gentle- men, may I have your attention in order to explain what is happening. I know that nobody wants to sit around, not knowing what is happening. The Constitutional Committee has adjourned, because they are granting the DP a chance to caucus on a specific issue. They will reconvene their business at 22:00. Mr Ramaphosa told me that he expected their business to be finished swiftly after reconvening, because they would be dealing with a report that everybody had agreed to pending this caucus. My suggestion to him then was that the persons who would normally have made speeches on that report not do so, and that they rather come and make them here.

The public gallery is open to those hon members who would like to follow the proceedings there when they start at22:00.1 am sorry to say that that is the best information I can give hon members at this stage. I have tried to put our case as forcefully as I could by pointing out that we have concluded our business here, and that they should do the same, so that we could all be united again.

Mrs G J FRASER-MOLEKETI: [Inaudible.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: No, I am reluctant to tell you a time, but Mr Ramaphosa's words were that the report would not take long. I tried to speed things up by asking them to deliver then- speeches here. Hon members can join them in the public gallery at 22:00, to see what they are doing. If they do not react properly and swiftly, we can interject from the gallery! [Laughter.]

Business suspended at 21:50 and resumed at 00:25 on 8 May 1996.

Evening Sitting

Dr B E NZIMANDE: Mr Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen, and comrades. Hector Petersen was the first to be shot and killed on Wednesday, 16 June 1976.1 am sure that sometime this afternoon Hector Petersen was turning in his grave, as we were facing a situation in which we seemed to be about to reintroduce what he died fighting.

I can say that tonight we can really claim a victory.

An HON MEMBER: This morning!

Dr B E NZIMANDE: It does not matter. [Laughter.] This morning we can claim a victory because we are closing the chapter on apartheid education in this country once and for all. [Applause.] May Hector Petersen rest in peace.

I just wish to make a few comments. Firstly, I would like to start by setting the record straight with regard to the manner in which this issue of education has been presented by sections of the media. The ANC fully subscribes to the principle of mother-tongue education. The ANC also firmly believes in the promotion and protection of all 11 South African languages, none at the expense of others. Because of this position, the ANC is fully committed to the entrenchment of language rights and the right to education in the mother tongue.

I have been saying this because Die Burger, amongst others, attacked me yesterday for not agreeing to securing mother-tongue education. I would like to say that it is a shame for a newspaper that has such status to simply rush into writing something without checking its facts. In fact, it is the ANC which says that every child or learner has the right to be taught in his or her mother tongue or language of choice. In their rush to try to garner support for the NP, they then lied to the people of the Western Cape.

Secondly, they attacked me for being a fossilised communist [Interjections.] By calling me a communist, Die Burger thought that it was insulting me, but I would like to say that I am a proud member of the SACP. [Applause.] I am saying this in the presence of my general secretary in the gallery. I would also like to say that the SACP has been part of the struggle to bring about democracy in this country while Die Burger was trying to defend apartheid. [Applause.]

I would also like to say more about the NP. The NP has been trying all these weeks to have the constitution entrenching what they present as single-medium institutions. In essence, what they wanted us to preserve was White, Christian- national education in exclusive Afrikaner schools. [Interjections.] I am happy to say this morning that we have defeated the NP. The democratic forces and the entire liberation movement can claim as a victory that there shall be no entrench- ment of exclusivist schools in this country. [Applause.]

An HON MEMBER: That is why you arc a communist!

Dr B E NZIMANDE: Yes, that is why I am a communist. I agree with the hon member. I would also like to say that I was phoned by Premier Mathews Phosa. He told me that at a particular school in Bethel, Mpumalanga, 109 African students who had been registered at this school by the name of Hoogenhoudt were told this week that their admission was temporarily suspended until Monday. The reason they gave for that suspension was that they were waiting for the outcome of the constitutional negotiations. In other words, they are waiting for us to entrench White exclusivist Afrikaner schools so that that school can actually chuck out those 109 African students. [Interjections.] We want to say to those 109 students that Hoogenhoudt School is their school from today onwards. [Applause.] They will also be taught in the language of their choice. It is these kinds of schools, such as those in Potgietersrus, Groblersdal, etc, that the NP has wanted us to entrench.

In concluding I would like to give the NP some advice. It is time that they forget about apartheid and realise that the only way they can ensure the protection of cultural and language rights is in the context of the rights of all South Africans in a democratic and nonracial dispensation.

I also want to say that the NP wants Coloured votes, but it does not want Coloureds in their schools. [Interjections.] I am sorry to say that the Black members of the NP today must thank the ANC, because we have defended the education of the Black members of the NP tonight. [Applause.] It is time that they ask themselves whether they really belong to that party. Forward to a nonracial democratic education, forward!

HON MEMBERS: Forward! [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Thank you very much. Before I call on Mr Renier Schoeman, I want to say that I am allowing this enthusiasm because members had to curtail themselves during the negotiating process, but I would like us to finish this debate before daybreak.

Mr R S SCHOEMAN: Mr Chairperson, this is a great pity. We have just come from the meeting of the Constitutional Committee where a different Blade Nzimande spoke. [Interjections.] I must say I prefer that one. He is the equivalent of a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. As far as the accusation of being a fossilised communist is concerned, if the shoe fits, he should wear it.

Despite the steps that were taken to make this whole process of constitution-writing an exercise in transparency, it was impossible to externalise more than a small percentage of the intensive activities and negotiations that took place. Unfortunately these circumstances have had one negative, potentially destructive side effect in that they have lent themselves to misinterpretation and misleading allegations, specifically in the debate about the provision for education in the Bill of Rights, clause 29. We have heard and seen that again here tonight in the words of Dr Nzimande. He knows as well as anybody who is truthful with himself that making the accusation that the NP has any truck with the kind of thing that was done in Potgietersnis is a lie. [Interjections.] That is not true. [Interjections.] He can take the lesson from Dr Goebbels and think that if one repeats a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it, but that will not happen in this country. [Interjections.]

I believe it is very necessary to set the record straight in this House, once and for all, about the alleged motives of the NP in its stand concerning single-medium institutions. I can do this by quoting directly from one of the proposals tabled by my party during the current negotiations. In that proposal, the NP stated the following categorically:

Single-medium institutions shall not

(1) discriminate on the basis of race

(2) refuse admission only on the grounds that a person's mother tongue differs from the medium of education at such an institution, as long as that person accepts education in that medium

(3) be maintained where the number of learners in such institution does not warrant the continued use of the existing facilities concerned as a single-medium institution.

What could possibly be clearer? One has to be blind not to see that No racial discrimination, no use of language on its own to exclude, no utilisation of facilities by an unjustifiably low number of learners. To suggest, therefore, that the NP is advocating either a return to apartheid or the preservation of White Afrikaner privilege is devoid of all truth. It is a blatant untruth. In fact, it a lie. [Interjections.] It will not stand any test of fact. Unfortunately, all that this type of false propaganda does is confuse the issue and heighten the emotion in a debate which is of crucial importance to the future of this country.

All that the NP argued in the negotiations was that there were firm educational grounds for a single- medium learning environment, with provision for the teaching of other languages, for reasons which did not run counter to the ideals of nation- building, nonracism, access and multilingualism. This ideal is not unique to South Africa, and it is recognised and provided for in many other countries, but this fact was deliberately obscured in the debate for the purpose of political argumentation. [Interjections.]

Having dealt with this less than edifying run-up to where we are today, I wish to say that the NP welcomes the fact that a broad consensus, recognising the inalienable right to mother-tongue education, has emerged.

It is a good thing that recognition is now being given to this inalienable right, namely mother- tongue education. Assailing this right has the potential to rip any further attempt at nation- building in this country to shreds and to unleash an unprecedented rebelliousness and radicalisation among decent people who feel strongly about one of their most basic social rights.

Against this background it was essential for the final provision on education to give thorough, full-fledged recognition to the right to mother- tongue education, and for it to make provision for the continued existence of nonracial single-medium schools, where this is justified, as is now indeed the case. We would have liked to formulate this differently, but we are convinced that, taking other associated provisions into account, we have succeeded in our negotiating objective regarding this matter.

Mr Chairperson, this recognition of the right to education and the official language or languages of choice is to be exercised within the clear context of public educational institutions, subject to the test of reasonable practicability, and I believe that this will be seen by communities as pointing the way to a potentially acceptable accommodation of many of their basic ideals for their children. I must warn, however, that for many communities the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

South Africans of all persuasions will watch critically as access to and implementation of this right unfolds against the backdrop of the reality of our multilingual and multicultural land. Ultimately the test of the various constitutional provisions which can have an impact on education, will be how they are experienced by the broad community, by parents and by learners.

The touchstone will be the capacity of this country to ensure increased access so that the undisputed commitment to basic quality education for all, which the NP supports fully, not only as an obligation, but primarily as an honouring of a promise to all its citizens, is met.

Another touchstone will remain the extent to which this country is seen to provide reasonable education alternatives to accommodate the rich diversity which is characteristic of South Africa, something we ignore at our peril.

In conclusion, it is essential that the constitution be given further form in practice. This will require genuine commitment, resolve, flexibility and the watchful eye of all South Africans. The NP will be playing a key role in that regard, in the interests of education for all in this country, but also in the interests of South Africa.

Mr R K SIZANI: Mr Chairperson, I do not want to detain this Assembly for very long this evening, or rather this morning. I just want to place a few matters on record.

The first thing I wish to do on behalf of my organisation, is to thank the Chairperson and his Deputy for having driven this process in a fair and democratic manner. [Applause.]

Secondly, as negotiators of the PAC, Comrade Patricia and I would like to thank all the other parties, especially the majority party, for having listened to us and for accommodating us when they were able to do so. [Applause.]

We would also like to thank the CA staff for being very helpful to all parties, including the PAC. [Applause.]

I want to deal with four matters this evening, just to place them on record. I think our position has been clear throughout the process. We want to emphasise that the PAC rejects clause 25 of this new constitution, the property clause, in toto.

Secondly, the PAC does not accept the special amendment in the education clause, clause 29(2), which provides for the possibility of single- medium institutions, funded by the State, as an alternative, although we agree with most of what is contained in the education clause.

Thirdly, as far as clause 23(3) is concerned, which deals with the lockout issue, I wish to state that we support it fully in that it does not entrench in the constitution the so-called the right of employers to lock out workers.

The final clause that I want to deal with is clause 35(1 )(e) which deals with the rights of arrested or detained persons.

In so far as that clause seems to allow fishing expeditions-by the police and speculative arrests including, to a certain extent, limited detention without trial, we find that clause totally incompatible with our approach to the issue of the fight against crime in which we emphasise that crime, in a democratic country, must occur within a human rights context. We want to state categorically that we reject that clause.

On that note, the full statement of my organisation on this new constitution will be put before this House by my leader tomorrow. So I will not be speaking on what standpoint we are going to adopt. [Interjections.] I was just saying that the full statement of our position on this constitution will be stated by my leader later today. [Applause.]

Mr R P MEYER: Mr Chairperson, it seems as if we have developed this habit of not ending our business before twelve o'clock in the evening. However, I believe this is the very last evening or night of this kind-forever, I hope-in so far as constitution-making is concerned. We have done it before, when things took place at the World Trade Centre in Kempton Park, and we also continued with this habit during this constitution- making process in the Constitutional Assembly.

I think one can reflect on a lot of things if one thinks about the fact that this is really the final moment of the constitution-making process that we have been involved in for quite a long time in recent South African history. Of course, it fills one with some pleasure if one thinks about the fact that one has had the opportunity to be engaged in all of this so intensely and deeply over this period.

0bviously there is also the issue of the some- what subjective emotional response when one comes to realise these are the final moments of this era and that we are indeed beginning a new phase. Not only are we starting a new phase of constitutionality in South Africa, but also a new phase of democracy. Therefore I believe we are indeed heralding a new phase with the conclusion of this constitution-making process. It has to be dealt with properly, and parties should approach it in such a way that we make this a living constitution by means of a true multiparty democracy in South Africa. In the lone run it is probably the best way to ensure that this constitution is maintained and implemented in a dynamic way in South African constitutional and political life.

When one analyses the constitution as it has evolved, of course it is difficult within the spectrum of a few minutes to give a full reflection of what position the NP, or any other party for that matter, would hold as far as this constitution is concerned in the process of evaluating its con- tents. I would like to think that, on the whole, one can express support for the constitution on the basis of what we have before us and in terms of the goals we set ourselves in relation to what we wanted to attain in the constitution-making process.

If one looks at the overall perspective-and various speakers on the side of the NP have, of course, indicated our positions on various chapters of this constitution and stated where we were either totally happy with the contents, satisfied with the compromise reached or unhappy with the end result-and if one puts all those in a basket and weighs them in terms of a profit and loss account or a balance sheet, so to speak, then I think one can say that the overall impression is that we have effectively achieved the goals that we have set for ourselves in terms of this process. [Applause.]

I want to reflect briefly specifically on the results of the negotiations of.the.past few days. We all know that during the past two weeks four specific outstanding issues have been addressed, namely property, the lockout, language and education. Those issues remained the core of negotiations during the past week to ten days, particularly between the NP and the ANC on a bilateral basis, but also through interaction with the DP and the FF. I must express appreciation for the fact that the parties were constantly willing and constructively working towards finding solutions to these outstanding matters.

I think in that regard one must take the spirit and the approach that prevailed throughout this process as one of great significance, namely that at all stages one had the impression that parties were really seriously intending to achieve general consensus on the constitution. It was surely in that spirit that it was possible to look for solutions all the time.

Regarding the outstanding matters that I have referred to, it was already possible during the course of last week to reach agreement on the issue of language, and we need not reflect any further on that now. However, the other three issues remained until late yesterday, or today, as a matter of fact. They remained as issues which we could not resolve. We dealt with them separately, not necessarily as a package, and therefore in an endeavour to find a solution to each one of them as a substantive or independent issue in its own right.

As far as education is concerned, I think we have, in the final analysis, reached a compromise which might not completely satisfy the intentions that the NP had as far as the wording of this clause is concerned. I think it is also true to say that it might not completely satisfy the ANC in terms of what it intended in terms of this clause. Therefore the way in which the compromise was reached must be read in terms of the intentions and the sensitivities that both sides recorded.

On the one side there was the express need for mother-tongue language to also be provided for in single-medium institutions, and for that right to be provided for in the constitution. On the other side, the ANC argued throughout that that could not be provided for as a right. We ended up with a compromise which ensures that the question of exercising the right of mother-tongue language will have to be effectively addressed by also including single-medium institutions as an option in the process of exercising that right. I believe that this is the best compromise that could be reached in finding the middle ground between the sensitivities that we had to take account of in regard to this matter.

Education remains a very sensitive issue. Much is going to depend on how this clause, this right is going to be exercised by the authorities in the future. Therefore I would express the hope that what is intended in terms of this clause will be regarded very highly throughout in all the decisions that the authorities will exercise in their application of this clause in future. I hope that those of us who were involved in formulating this clause will also be able to make contributions in future to the way in which the authorities will have to exercise their authority when actually applying this clause in terms of the application of education.

On the issue of property, I think one can say that this was, in the end, probably the last issue that we had to resolve, and did indeed resolve, when it was agreed that a sensitivity or a concern that had been raised throughout the process regarding the proviso that was included in subclause 8, be addressed, thereby also ensuring in the process that subclause 8 of clause 25 would not override the provisions particularly of subclause 3 and subclause 2 of that clause. The way in which this was drafted ensures the protection that the NP sought in regard to this matter.

The last issue was that of the right to lockout, to which we unfortunately had to declare our opposition, but in order to ensure progress we allowed the ANC to proceed with that matter by including the text in the final draft of the constitution. Allowing that to go forward does not mean that we approve of the wording of that clause. However, for the sake of progress we allowed it to go ahead.

All in all, one can report progress over the past few days, and I think that one can state that the NP has achieved major successes also in the negotiations that took place over the weekend, yesterday and today. With that in mind, and also bearing in mind what we believe we have achieved overall in the process of the negotiations of the past two years regarding the goals that we set for ourselves and, of course, ensuring the ideals of all South Africans, we can state that on the whole we are satisfied with the constitution. Of course, there are exceptions, and they include matters like the way in which the right to life is being dealt with, specifically with reference to the death penalty and the matter of abortion. I have also referred to the matter of the lockout that we are not satisfied with, and there may be other issues in the same category that we are not satisfied with at all.

There are other issues that only reflected compromises, on which, in other words, no party could actually achieve its goal outright as it was stated at the beginning. In those cases we can state that we are largely satisfied with the compromises that we reached. Of course, there are other matters with which we were completely satisfied, having attained our goals.

If we draw up a balance sheet, we can therefore declare that we will support this constitution. [Applause.] The NP has considered the matter in depth, has consulted through the various structures of the NP, has met through its federal executive council, and has evaluated the situation properly, and has decided to vote in favour of this constitution.[Applause.]

Lastly, I would like to convey my personal appreciation to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. I believe that many speakers have already done so, but on a personal note, I feel obliged to do the same

When the Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly indicated that he was going to leave politics in search of better pastures, because they might be greener, I stated . . .

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: What are you saying now? [Laughter.]

Mr R P MEYER: Now suddenly the Chairperson does not follow Afrikaans! [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: No, I do not. I want to read you carefully. [Interjections.]

Mr R P MEYER: I must say that over the years I got to know the Chairperson very well. If he phoned me in the morning about a specific issue and addressed me in Afrikaans, I would always be very careful, because then I would know that he really wanted something from me. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

When the announcement was made that the Chairperson was going to retire from politics, or from this Place at least, I made a comment, and I would like to repeat it here. The following is the best summary that I can give on this occasion. I said it was a pity that we were coming to the end of an era, but fortunately not the end of a friendship.

I have to say this because we have over the years-we started working together in 1991 or 1992-learned to know each other under very difficult circumstances, the details of which I will not go into. [Laughter.] Over the years we have also, apart from the businesslike way in which we have dealt with our work-and I would like to think that we dealt with our work in a very professional way all the time-fortunately developed a friendship. [Applause.] I am glad to say that I am quite sure that that friendship will continue.

l would also like to express my sincere appreciation to the Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly. I shall not go into the history of how we know each other, but I would like to tell hon members that the Deputy Chairperson and I have known each other well for almost 30 years.

Our paths have crossed at various stages and during the past year we had, as a matter of course, a close association in public politics. What I would like to say to him, is that I am going to miss him. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Before I ask Prof Asmal to address us, I would just like to report that the Constitutional Committee adopted a resolution flowing from the decision it took yesterday, namely to attend to certain outstanding matters. Those matters have been attended to and, as hon members have heard through the speeches that have been made and delivered here, agreement has been reached on all those outstanding matters.

Furthermore, certain corrections have also been made to the text. On the basis of that resolution that has been adopted, I am informed that this document has been circulated and placed at the disposal of the members of the Constitutional Assembly. Therefore, I would like to move as follows:

That, noting that –

(1) the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill [B 34-96] was introduced at the First Reading on 22 April 1996, and that during the Committee Stage the Constitutional Committee agreed to various amendments to the Bill, after which the amended Bill [B 34A-96] was tabled on 6 May 1996;

(2) upon proofreading the Bill, tabled on 6 May 1996, various errors were identified, which errors and corrections thereof are contained in Annexure 'A', which has been distributed to members; and

(3) provisions of the Bill having been referred to the Constitutional Committee in terms of the Resolution adopted on 6 May 1996, various substantive and technical amendments to the Bill have been effected and are contained in Annexure 'B', which has likewise been distributed,

it is therefore resolved that-

(1) the Bill be accordingly amended in accordance with Annexures 'A' & B and

(2) the Technical Refinement Team be instructed to carry out whatever editorial changes are required to correct errors, including errors of omission, spelling, grammar, punctuation and inconsistency.

Agreed to

Prof A K. ASMAL: Mr Chairperson, dames en here [ladies and gentlemen], comrades, maqabane [comrades], it is a signal honour to be the last speaker as we come to the end of our proceedings. Tomorrow the captains and the kings will be addressing us. Tonight it is the culmination of our own process.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Which captains and kings?

Prof A K ASMAL: The captains and the kings- our betters.

It is now time for the tying up of all the ends of a process that began for many of us in 1912. So I, as the last speaker, will dedicate my contribution on behalf of my movement to the very great heroes and heroines who made this process possible. These were people who believed in the principle of inclusiveness and participation-Sol T Plaatje, Albert Luthuli. I conjure and I hope that they will look kindly on our deliberations, particularly Oliver Tambo and Helen Joseph.

In a few hours' time this Assembly-which means South Africa-with the captains and the kings officiating, will adopt the final constitution. We thus place the seal on the new social compact of our nation. The lives and futures of all our people will be made more secure, more hopeful and more meaningful than in our past, because of the certainty of our social compact.

And so future generations will look back on 8 May 1996 as a very special day. It marks the high point of our march, through struggle and through war, to liberation and democracy. It will augur well as we try to usher in an era of deepened democracy, of economic hope, social stability and constitutional order in our country.

In the elections of April 1994, we the elected representatives of South Africa gave our people a promissory note. We promised that by 8 May 1996 we would deliver a bank-guaranteed cheque for their future-'the final constitution. The constitution is therefore a means through which the people can cash in their rights. They can use it to hold the State and other interests to account. We must say very clearly that this cheque can never be allowed to bounce. [Interjections.]

After two years of toil, some pain, a lot of boredom, and after much dispute and many times of uncertainty, the members of the Constitutional Assembly, with some regrettable and notable exceptions, will see the totality of the work agreed to tomorrow. The constitution might not be perfect for all of us, and occasionally there was an air of grudging acceptance about aspects of it. It may lack the sparkle of a constitution drafted by Andi-6 Brink, or Antjie Krog or Mazisi Kunene. It may sadly lack the contribution of those who chose to boycott the process, because such people are still unprepared to take part in the feast. For the South African caravan moves on and tomorrow we reach the most exciting constitutional moment in our history. Nothing will deny our nation that celebration, because we are celebrating ourselves.

So, the real test of the constitution is not how many political organisations are party to the drafting or whether it reflects the interests and commands the support of ordinary citizens. It is a dynamic, creative document, particularly on notions such as co-operative governance, with the capacity to move with changing times and encompass new realities, while holding firm to fundamentals. It is a categorical assurance that never again will any person presume to be superior to another simply because of race, skin colour, gender, religion, sexual orientation or physical ability. In this it is a most decisive break with our past. So, our final constitution is the people's shield against such horrors.

There has, of course, been intense negotiation, particularly in the past week or so, right up to the last moment, over issues that are viewed as important to some constituencies. In the accommodating spirit of the remarkable times in which we live in South Africa, we in the ANC have tried hard to meet the reasonable and legitimate fears and desires of others, and sometimes even illegitimate ones. There had been helpful gestures from other sides and there is ground for hoping that the matters at issue that we will face in the future will be solved in the same spirit. So, we are saying to all the representatives of the nation gathered here: Come and tread the final mile of this exciting journey with us. Our country's future stability, its economy, the very fabric of our society, depend on our reaching not only this final constitutional milestone, even though this milestone reflects belief in the capacity of our country not only to get it right, but also to do it well. Then there are the vast tasks that still lie ahead of us, the tasks of reconstruction, of deepening our hard-won democracy, of building one nation, recognising the extraordinary variety of our cultures, languages, religions, and of completing the final jigsaw of local government elections that can be tackled then with the determination that brings success.

The dull drudgery of the past two years is now coming to an end. The inflexible positions adopted in public negotiations have of necessity had to be modified in the interests of seeking agreement.

Whatever postures they may have adopted, all parties involved in the process have had to be mindful of their constituencies. Yet, since the constitution is a modus vivendi, a means of living together for a whole nation, and not a party manifesto, there is a need to avoid triumphalism on the one hand, and a demand for total surrender on the other.

Let no party, tonight or tomorrow in the celebrations, claim victory over the making of this constitution, because there has been no final victory in that sense. The victory is our country's. The victory is South Africa's. We all should claim victory. The social compact that emerges must work for the entire nation. It is not the exclusive property of one or the other party.

This is therefore a distinctively South African contribution to a distinctively South African constitution. We have not been a copycat. We have relied on our own capacities, though we have adapted the experience of other countries to our conditions. It has been forged therefore over many long months by South Africans for South Africans. It is possibly an overdetailed document. There is an extensive diffusion of power. There is the new concept of co-operative government, with national, provincial and local government seen as uniquely distinctive, interdependent and interrelated in a way that should effectively end the silly unitary-versus-federal debate.

In many respects, the constitution leads the world-and we should acknowledge that. There are particularly wide powers for the Constitutional Court, very wide powers of access to the Constitutional Court. This is the jewel in the crown of the constitution, and will shoulder much responsibility.

Then we have the recognition of language, cultural and religious rights being exercised collectively, which again is a recognition of the special experiences of our country. There is an in-built flexibility in many respects in the constitution. There is a guarantee for economic and social rights within the bounds of what is practicable. There is the novel and essential concept of just administrative action. There is effective access to information. There is a provision for the declaration of a state of emergency, temporary and rigorously controlled, possibly the most advanced provision relating to a state of emergency in any modem constitution. The presidency is limited to two full terms only. There are a number of State institutions supporting constitutional democracy, not least of which is the Independent Electoral Commission, which we look forward to. The role and scope of the security forces are specified, possibly for the first time in a modem constitution, in some detail. The most detailed arrangements are laid down for general financial matters.

What is more, the constitution is written in a language that everyone can read, and is organised in a way that all can follow. It comes from, and therefore belongs to, the people, and we must therefore ensure that it does not become the exclusive playpen of lawyers or academics. For the first time ordinary South Africans can read and digest the basic law that determines their lives.

Now therefore, as we end formally, let us praise some men and some women. A word of warm praise is due, not only to the corporate body of this Assembly, the panels of hard-working experts and the staff, but to a special group of people whose hand is so apparent in this work. Perhaps one of the most remarkable, and yet the least remarked- on, features of this constitution is the role of women in its construction. Probably never before in history has such a high proportion of women been involved in writing a constitution. [Applause.]

I think not only of the enormous contributions made by fellow comrades such as Baleka, Naledi, Mavivi, Jenny, Janet, as well as women from other political parties such as Dene, Sheila and Patricia, but also those women who have worked tirelessly in the backrooms, at the very coalface, those unsung heroines, women like Vivienne Smith and Kate Savage without whom the work would not and could not have been completed. [Applause.]

These women, like all of us, were inspired by the older women who are here and who raised the issue of gender in our movements and in our constitution-making process. It is a special tribute to them, because they inspired us and have produced the quality of women that I have mentioned.

Having women so solidly involved in all the processes of the Constitutional Assembly has given genuine depth to and a far better expression of the needs of our people in our constitution because of its exclusiveness, not just on the gender issue, but on all issues.

Finally, our praise and thanks go to the remarkable person who stands at the apex of the Constitutional Assembly, the Chairperson, Comrade Cyril, not totally forgetting, of course, the untiring efforts . . . [Applause] . . .of his NP counterpart and his Deputy in the CA, the hon Leon Wessels. [Applause.]

In the informality of this final constitution- making hour I use first names by design. Comrade Cyril, our "man for all seasons", has achieved exquisite success against all odds. His grasp of the nub of issues, his negotiating skills, his carefully hooded menace that comes at the right time . . . [Laughter] .. his singleness of purpose, his charm and indeed his buoying and almost outrageous wit have combined to make him an indispensable part of the whole nation's constitutional triumph. [Applause.]

The darkness of our lives has been removed, so we may utter with William Wordsworth :

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,

But to be young was very heaven!

So let us savour this choice moment in history with a spring in our step and hasten to seal the social compact of our new nation and say: "Hamba kahle South Africa. Go well my country!" [Applause.]

Debate interrupted.

The meeting adjourned at 01:20 on Wednesday, 8 May 1996

[PMG note: Annexure "A" Errata to Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill as amended by the Constitutional Committee not included ]

"B" Amendments to Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill as amended by the Constitutional Committee 6 May 1996

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill, as amended 6 May 1996, is amended as follows:

1. Section 25 is amended by replacing subsection (8) with the following amended subsection (8): No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accor- dance with the provisions of section 36(1).

2. Section 29 is amended by replacing subsection (2) with the following amended subsection (2):

(2) Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. In order to ensure the effective access to, and implementation of, this right, the state must consider all reasonable educational alternatives, including single medium institutions, taking into account -

(a) equity;

(b) practicability; and

(c) the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory law and practice.

3. Section 29 is further amended by the addition of the following subsection (4):

(4) Subsection (3) does not preclude state subsidies to independent educational institutions.

4. Section 35 is amended by the replacing subsection (1)(e) with the following: (1) (e) at the first court appearance after being arrested, to be charged or informed of the reason for the detention to continue, or to be released; and

5. Section 39 is amended by the deletion of subsection (4).

6. Section 42(6) is amended by replacing paragraph (a) with the following:

(6) (a) The seat of Parliament is Cape Town, but an Act of Parliament, enacted in accordance with subsections 76(1) and (5), may determine that the seat of Parliament is else- where.

7. Section 42(6) is further amended by deleting paragraph (b).

8. Section 51 is amended by the addition of the following subsection (3):

(3) Sittings of the National Assembly are permitted at places other than the seat of Parliament only on the grounds of pub- lic interest, security or convenience, and if provided for in the rules and orders of the Assembly.

9. Section 55 is amended by deleting from subsection (2)(b)(ii) the words "other than a court".

10. Section 63 is amended by the addition of the following subsection (3):

(3) Sittings of the National Council of Provinces are permitted at places other than the seat of Parliament only on the grounds of public interest, security or convenience, and if provided for in the rules and orders of the Council.

11. Section 76(4)(a) is replaced by the following:

(4) (a) envisaged in section 44(2) or 220(3); or

12. Section 76 is further amended by the addition of subsection (5) as follows:

(5) A Bill envisaged in section 42(6) must be dealt with in accordance with the procedure established in subsection (1), except that-

(a) when the National Assembly votes on the Bill, the provisions of section 53(1) do not apply; instead, the Bill may be passed only if a majority of the members of the Assembly vote in favour of it; and

(b) if the Bill is referred to the Mediation Committee, the following rules apply:

(i) If the National Assembly considers a Bill as envisaged in subsection (1)(g) or (h), that Bill may be passed only if a majority of the members of the Assembly vote infavour of it.

(ii) If the National Assembly considers or reconsiders a Bill as envisaged in subsection (1)(e), (i) of (j). that Bill may be passed only if at least two- thirds of the members of the Assembly vote in favour of it.

13. Section 104 is amended by the deletion of subsection (4), and the renumbering of the remaining subsections.

14. Section 114 is amended by deleting from subsection (2)(b)(ii) the words "including a provincial statutory body".

15. Section 155 is amended by the replacement of subsection (3) with the following subsection (3):

(3) Subject to the provisions of sections 44, 151 and 154 -

(a) a provincial government has the legislative and executive power to monitor the local government matters listed in Schedules 4 and 5; and

(b) national and provincial governments have the legislative and executive power to see to the effective performance by municipalities of their functions in respect of those matters, by regulating the exercise of municipalities' executive author- ity referred to in section 156(1).

16. Section 156 is amended by the deletion of subsection (2), and the renumbering of the remaining subsections.

17. Section 157 is amended by the addition of the following subsection (6):

(6) The national legislation referred to in section 157(1)(b) must establish a sys- tem of appointment that allows for parties and interests reflected within the Municipal Council and making appointments, to be fairly represented.

18. Section 181 is amended by replacing subsection

(3) with the following: (3) Other organs of state, through legislature and other measures, must assist and protect these institutions to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of these institutions.

19. Section 196 is amended by replacing subsections (3) and (4) with the following:

(3) Each of the provinces may nominate a person to be appointed to the commission.

(4) Members of the Commission nominated by provinces may exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Commission in their provinces, as prescribed by national legislation.

20. Section 217 is amended by replacing subsections (1) and (2) with the following:

(1) When an organ of state in the national, provincial or local sphere of government, or any other institution identified by national legislation, contracts for goods and services, it must do so in accordance with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.

(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the organs of state or institutions referred to in that subsecdon implementing a procurement policy providing for -

(a) categories of preference in the allocation of contracts; and

(b) the protection or advancement of persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.

21. Section 239 is replaced by the following amended section 239:

239. (1) In the Constitution, unless the con- text indicates otherwise, "organs of state" means-

(a) any department of state or administration in the national, provincial or local sphere of government; and

(b) any other functionary or institution-

(i) exercising a power or performing a function in terms of the Constitution or a provincial constitution; or
(ii) exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of legislation.

(2) Despite subsection (1), "organ of state" does not include judicial officers or courts.

22. Section 242 and 243 are deleted and section 241 is renumbered as section 242.

23. The following new section is inserted as section 241:

Labour Relations Act, 1995

241 (1) A provision of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Act No 66 of 1995) remains valid, notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution, until the provision is amended or repealed.

(2) A Bill to amend or repeal a provision of the Labour Relations Act may be introduced in Parliament only after consultation with national federations of trade unions, and employer organisations.

The consultation referred to in subsection (2), including the identification of the federations to be consulted, must be in accordance with an Act of Parliament.

24. The following is inserted as section 243:

Repeal of laws

243. The laws mentioned in Schedule 7 are repealed, subject to section 244(4) and Schedule 6.

25. The following is inserted as section 244:

Short title and commencement

244. (1) This Act is called the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996, and comes into effect on a date set by the President by proclamation not later than 1 January 1997.

(2) Different dates before the date referred to in subsection (1) may be fixed in respect of different provisions of the Constitution.

(3) Unless the context otherwise indicates, a reference in a provision of the Constitution to a time when the Constitution took effect must be construed as a reference to the time when that provision took effect.

(4) If a different date. is fixed for any particular provision of the Constitution in terms of subsection (2), any corresponding provision of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993, mentioned in the proclamation, is repealed with effect from the same date.

26. Schedule 4 is amended by the addition of the following items to Part A of the Schedule:

Vehicle licensing

Property transfer fee

27. Schedule 6 is amended by the addition of the following words to the end of Item 20(4):

Members assembled in the Chamber of the National Assembly at 09:05.

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

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA BILL (Second Reading debate resumed)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Mr President, Deputy President Mbeki, Deputy President De Klerk, honourable colleagues of the Constitutional Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, visitors, this is a special day in the constitutional history of our country. It heralds the end of an era and the dawn of a new day. Different routes have brought us here. Our leaders will soon guide us and tell us how they see the future.

Today is not just another day on the calendar of the Constitutional Assembly. It is a day for which we have worked for two years. tl call upon the hon Mr Ramaphosa to address us. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly, Comrade President, Deputy Presidents Thabo Mbeki and F W de Klerk, leaders of all political parties represented here, your majesties, your excellencies. Speaker of the National Assembly, Deputy Speaker, President of the Senate, Deputy President of the Senate, members of the National Assembly and the Senate, I would like to welcome you all as the Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly has. I would also like to say today is a day of joy. It is a day of celebration. They have just brought me some water here, and I would like to do what the hon the President often does as he addresses us, because it is a day to say cheers! [Applause.]

It is indeed a historic day. It is the birthday of the South African rainbow nation. This is the day when South Africa is truly born.

As we begin this joyous and solemn occasion, I would like to reveal a part of myself and to dedicate my address to three great South Africans who would have been here with us today if time and tide had been kinder: Oliver Reginald Tambo, Chris Hani and Joe Slovo. [Applause]

There are many others one could have cited, but these are the three leaders whom I personally sorely missed during the process of constitution- making. I missed them, because I related to all of them in different ways. All of them were there when we started the negotiation process, and they contributed a great deal to me personally, in enabling me and many others to negotiate the transition process and emerge with an interim Constitution.

I do wish they were here. I am grieved that they cannot be with us to share this occasion, an occasion that they worked for and died to make possible. May their memory live long in our minds.

Today we are gathered here to make history. We South Africans have adapted so easily to our role as initiators and witnesses to events which number among the most significant of this century.

We often forget or lose sight of just how historic and profound some of these events are. When we vote today to adopt the constitution before us, we will indeed be giving life to a new nation, a nation of free and equal people. Our country, our people, will indeed have come of age when we vote for this constitution. Today is the culmination of a process of consultation, discussion and negotiation which began almost two years ago in this very Assembly. In truth, the constitution-making process began long before that. It began when the people of this country, deprived of their birthright, dreamt of a country in which all would be free. Indeed, we can say that through this constitution we confirm that we are a free people. Over the years this dream has been articulated by many South Africans. The call for freedom resonated across the length and the breadth of the country and around the world.

South Africans, in their millions, have fought for this freedom, the freedom which we are crowning on this historic day. Hundreds of thousands died, were tortured, detained, jailed, banned, silenced and exiled in order to write this constitution.

Today we are here to celebrate the culmination of that struggle. The constitution before us today is a product of a collective effort by many people.

Since we embarked on the formal constitution- making process 24 months ago. South Africans from across the country have embraced the process as their own. It is no exaggeration when we say that a team of 43 million people worked on this constitution. In that team there are a number of people who deserve special mention, and one is the team leader, the one and only team leader, President Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela . . . [Applause.] ... whose guidance, inspiration and leadership strengthened our endeavours over the past two years. We have had to draft the constitution in many forms, and it was always a joy for me to take the big-print version to the President. When we gave them the small-print version he said: "I am not going to read this. I want the big print, because I want to make sure that there are no small-print bits in which you might be making mistakes."

The support that the CA received from the Deputy Presidents added to the impetus of our work. Whenever Leon Wessels and I met Deputy President F W de Klerk, he always spared a moment to encourage us. [Applause.] The insistence, on the part of Deputy President Mbeki, that we do everything possible to meet the deadline strengthened our resolve. [Applause.] I recall that one evening when we as a management commit- tee had doubts whether we would meet the deadline, I shared my doubts with him; there were just the two of us. I said that we might have to go to November. He gave me the most steely-eyed look I have ever seen him give anyone. [Laughter.]

He said: "Chief, that is not possible, that is not doable, that will not happen." That, in a way, had a bonding effect between me and him, and I knew then that we had to meet the deadline. Two days thereafter I said to him: "You were right. Once again, you were right." I would like to thank you for your insistence. Deputy President T M Mbeki. [Applause.]

Members of the Cabinet had to try to do the impossible by attending to matters of governance and constitution-making. Their attention to constitution-making added to the wisdom we needed in the Assembly. We missed them sorely when they were not here. There was an occasion when one of the members of the Assembly said: "Where are they?" We all knew that they were working on matters of government. However, whenever they were able to joints-there were a few of them who joined us from time to time- they added a great deal of value and wisdom to our discussions, and I thank them all. [Applause.]

I wish to thank the leaders of all political parties. As the president of the ANC, our President, is not a member of this Assembly and cannot vote- fortunately- I extend my deep gratitude once again to Deputy President Mbeki for the leader- ship he provided to the ANC and the ANC negotiators during this two-year period.

Deputy President De Klerk also provided leader- ship to members of the NP. I wish to thank Gen Viljoen too. He participated in meetings of the Constitutional Assembly and management committee, and I thank him too for providing leader- ship to members of his party. I wish to thank Mr Tony Leon. [Applause.] I thank Mr Leon. We had many differences. Some of the differences were played out in the meetings of the Constitutional Committee, and they added spice to the proceedings of the Constitutional Committee.

I wish to thank Mr Clarence Makwetu for providing leadership to the PAC members who participated on an ongoing basis in the proceedings of the Constitutional Assembly. [Applause.] I wish to thank Rev Meshoe as well. [Applause.] More importantly, I wish to thank all the members of the Assembly for the commitment and hard work, patience and good humour that all of us have demonstrated throughout this process. I would especially like to thank: members of the theme committees, who have become constitutional experts of the first order.

We would never have finished our work without the active support of the presiding officers of the National Assembly and the Senate, as well as the Whips. I give special thanks to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr Frene Ginwala, and the Deputy Speaker, Dr Ranchod, the President of the Senate, Mr Coetsee, and the Deputy President of the Senate, Mr Govan Mbeki. [Applause.] I also thank the Leader of the House-die former Leader of the House, our Minister of Finance, and the present leader of the House, Mr Steve Tshwete-for all the support that they gave us throughout this process. They went out of their way to give us time and accommodate us. We do thank them most sincerely.

Behind the scenes the technical advisers, the panel of experts and the law advisers have all worked flawlessly to ensure that the large and the small cogs of this constitution are in place. I thank them, all of them-the panel of experts, the advisers and the technical experts. We would not have this type of document if they had not worked the many hours that they did. [Applause.]

Special thanks have to go to the staff of the Constitutional Assembly . . . [Applause.] . . . and in this regard I would like to single out four people, Hassan Ebrahim, Louisa Zondo, Peter Lilienfeld and Marion Sparg. [Applause.] They deserve the highest of medals in recognition. They started an administration from scratch and did everything excellently, efficiently, cost-effectively and with a great sense of passion. I thank them from the depth of my heart. We would not have done this without them. [Applause.]

I also thank members of the Constitutional Committee and to members of the management committee I extend my thanks and gratitude too. Members of the Constitutional Committee argued, differed and fought, but I also saw them embracing. I saw them embracing at 03:00 when they reached an agreement on a matter which most of us thought we would never reach agreement on. I saw tears in their eyes, and I knew that they were a group of people who would indeed deliver a constitution to this country. I thank them most sincerely. [Applause.]

I wish to say a special thank you to Roelf Meyer. I thank him for being a negotiating partner, and for negotiating not only the transitional or interim Constitution but also this constitution. I extend my deep-felt gratitude to him. [Applause.] Leon Wessels and I still have to have a bilateral, the two of us. At that bilateral we are going to speak at a very personal level. We have worked very well over the past two years, and a friendship has emerged between us. Unfortunately we both leave this Assembly to go to other careers, but we have promised each other that from time to time we would visit each other, have a cup of tea... [Laughter.] . . . and talk about this constitution. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Chairperson, there are a number of other people and institutions that I need to thank. I am thinking, of course, of the numerous governments, international organisations and institutions which have provided generous support to the Constitutional Assembly and our public- participation programme. I would like to note, in particular, the governments of the United King- dom, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Switzerland. Special mention should also be made of the Danish Centre for Human Rights, USaid, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the European Union.

I am thinking also of all the sponsors in the private sector who decided that the future of this nation was a sound investment and that it would pay substantial dividends for the entire nation. I want to mention, in particular, the support we received from Liberty Life, Sappi, Mondi, IBM, Appleton, Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery . . . [Laughter.] . . . Telkorn, HNR Computers, Sony and BMD Tex- tiles. It is to these people that South Africa owes a debt of gratitude. Through their support and hard work, we have been able to achieve so much. [Applause.]

I would also like to thank all the people of our country who participated in this process, all those people who gave us submissions by post, by fax, by telephone and by e-mail, those who sent us petitions and who attended our public meetings and sectoral hearings. We say: Thank you all for the effort that you put in to ensure that we have a constitution.

People will ask what can be said about this constitution. This constitution, with its Bill of Rights, is the mirror of South African society. It reflects both the history from which we have emerged, and the values we now cherish-human dignity, equality and freedom. It proclaims to the world that we are a society committed to democracy, to the rule of law and the protection of human rights. It proclaims to all South Africans, the landless, the homeless, the women, the workers and the children of this country, that their basic needs and aspirations matter enough to be included in the country's constitution.

It celebrates the richness of the diversity of cultures, religions and beliefs of South Africans, and affirms that all belong as equals in our one nation. It commits the State to respecting, protect- ing, promoting and to fulfilling the rights in the Bill of Rights and acknowledges that it is not enough for the Government simply to refrain from violating people's rights. It is also necessary for the Government to take positive measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment of human rights by all South Africans. Through this constitution, we hope to transform our society from one that is based on injustice and strife to one based on justice and peace.

This constitution also creates a framework for sound and effective government in South Africa. It is good for investors, and it is also good for the rand. (Laughter.] Co-operation, accountability, responsiveness and openness are entrenched as the principles of government at all levels in South Africa. To deepen the culture of democracy and human rights in South Africa, the constitution establishes a number of important institutions such as the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission, the Commission for Gender Equality and also, the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities. These bodies are charged with the vital task of ensuring that the Government remains committed to the values of this constitution.

This constitution is the subject of a rather fortunate paradox. It is no one's constitution, and yet it is everyone's constitution. Just as no one party sees its constitutional proposals reproduced in their entirety in this Bill, so no one person can claim exclusive ownership of this constitution. It belongs to everyone in the Constitutional Assembly, and it is a reflection of our collective will for a new, united and democratic nation. This constitution belongs to South Africans.

The constitution contained in the Bill before us is the product of negotiation and compromise. Yet the central tenets of a democratic, just and equitable society remain uncompromised, be- cause freedom is non-negotiable. The achievements of this Assembly are, therefore, remarkable. The provisions of this constitution are sound. The expectations of our nation are great.

The other thing which our constitution does for us is to make our country the new mecca of constitution-makers. Constitution-makers from all over the world will come to this country to study how we drafted our constitution and to study the constitution itself. We welcome them all. We invite them to South Africa to come and study how democracy really functions. [Applause.]

Today we will vote on this constitution. We will be exercising an awesome responsibility. It is my duty as Chairperson to urge all of us in this Assembly, even those who may have some reservations, to vote today for a democratic and free South Africa. Let us all give our country its true birth certificate. The people of our country expect no less of us. [Applause.]

Mr T M MBEKI: Mr Chairperson, esteemed President of the democratic Republic, hon members of the Constitutional Assembly, our domestic and foreign guests, friends, on an occasion such as this we should perhaps start from the beginning. So let me begin. [Laughter.]

I am an African. [Applause.] I owe my being to the hills and the valleys, the mountains and the glades, the rivers, the deserts, the trees, the flowers, the seas and the ever-changing seasons that define the face of our native land. [Applause.] My body has frozen in our frosts and in our latter-day snows. It has thawed in the warmth of our sunshine and melted in the heat of the midday sun. The crack and the rumble of the summer thunders, lashed by startling lightning have been a cause both of trembling and of hope. The fragrances of nature have been as pleasant to us as the sight of the wild blooms of the citizens of the veld.

The dramatic shapes of the Drakensberg, the soil-coloured waters of the Ligwa, iGqili and uThukela and the sands of the Kalahari have all been panels of the set on the natural stage on which we act out the foolish deeds of the theatre of the day. At times, and in fear, I have wondered whether I should concede equal citizenship of our country to the leopard and the lion, the elephant and the springbuck, the hyena, the black mamba and the pestilential mosquito. [Laughter

As a human presence among all of these, a feature on the face of our native land as it has just been defined, I know that none dare challenge me when I say I am an African. [Applause.]

I owe my being to the Khoi and the San, whose desolate souls haunt the great expanses of the beautiful Cape-they who fell victim to the most merciless genocide our native land has ever seen, they who were the first to lose their lives in the struggle to defend our freedom and independence, and they who as a people perished in the result. Today, as a country, we keep an audible silence about these ancestors of the generations that live, fearful to admit the horror of the former deed, seeking to obliterate from our memories a cruel occurrence which, in its remembering, should teach us not and never to be inhuman again. [Applause.]

I am formed of the migrants who left Europe to find a new home in our native land. Whatever their own actions, they remain, still, part of me.

In my veins courses the blood of the Malay slaves who came from the East. Their proud dignity informs my bearing, their culture a part of my essence. The stripes they bore on their bodies from the lash of the slave-master are a reminder embossed on my consciousness of what should not be done. [Applause.]

I am the grandchild of the warrior men and women that Hintsa and Sekhukhune led, the patriots that Cetshwayo and Mphephu took to battle, the soldiers whom Moshoeshoe and Ngugunyane taught never to dishonour the cause of freedom.

My mind and my knowledge of my self are formed by the victories that are the jewels in our African crown, the victories we earned from Isandhlwana to Khartourn, as Ethiopians, as the Ashanti of Ghana, as the Berbers of the desert.

I am the grandchild who lays flowers on the Boer graves at St Helena, the Bahamas and the Vroue Monument, who sees in the mind's eye and suffers the suffering of a simple peasant folk-death, concentration camps, destroyed homesteads, a dream in ruins.

I am the child of Nongqause. I am he who made it possible to trade in the world markets in diamonds, in gold, in the same food for which our stomachs yearn.

I come of those who were transported from India and China, whose being resided in the fact, solely, that they were able to provide physical labour, who taught me that we could both be at home and be foreign, who taught me that human existence itself demanded that freedom was a necessary condition for that human existence.

Being part of all of these people, and in the knowledge that none dares contest that assertion, I shall claim that I am an African! [Applause.]

I have seen our country torn asunder as these, all of whom are my people, engaged one another in a titanic battle, the one to redress a wrong that had been caused by one to another, and the other to defend the indefensible.

I have seen what happens when one person has superiority of force over another, when the stronger appropriate to themselves the prerogative even to annul the injunction that God created all men and women in His image.

I know what it signifies when race and colour are used to determine who is human and who subhuman.

I have seen the destruction of all sense of . self-esteem, the consequent striving to be what one is not, simply to acquire some of the benefits which those who had imposed themselves as masters had ensured that they enjoyed. I have experience of the situation in which race and colour are used to enrich some and impoverish the rest. I have seen the corruption of minds and souls as a result of the pursuit of an ignoble effort to perpetrate a veritable crime against humanity. I have seen concrete expression of the denial of the dignity of a human being emanating from the conscious, systemic and systematic oppressive and repressive activities of other human beings.

There the victims parade with no mask to hide the brutish reality-the beggars, the prostitutes, the street children, those who seek solace in substance abuse, those who have to steal to assuage , hunger, those who have to lose their sanity because to be sane is to invite pain.

Perhaps the worst among these, who are my people, are those who have learnt to kill for a wage. To these, the extent of death is directly proportional to their personal welfare, and so, like pawns in the service of demented souls, they kill in furtherance of the political violence in KwaZulu-Natal. They murder the innocent in the taxi wars. They kill slowly or quickly in order to make profits from the illegal trade in narcotics. They are available for hire when husband wants to murder wife and wife, husband.

Among us prowl the products of our immoral and amoral past, killers who have no sense of the worth of human life, rapists who have absolute disdain for the women of our country, animals who would seek to benefit from the vulnerability of the children, the disabled and the old, the rapacious who brook no obstacle in their quest for self-enrichment.

All this I know and I know to be true because I am an African! Because of that, I am also able to state this fundamental truth, that I am born of a people who are heroes and heroines. I am born of a people who would not tolerate oppression. I am of a nation that would not allow that fear of death , of torture, of imprisonment, of exile or of persecution should result in the perpetuation of injustice.

The great masses, who are our mother and father, will permit that the behaviour of the few results in the description of our country and people as barbaric. Patient because history is on their side, these masses do not despair because today the weather is bad. Nor do they turn triumphalist when tomorrow the sun shines. Whatever the circumstances they have lived through, and because of that experience, they are determined to define for themselves who they are and who they should be.

We are assembled here today to mark their victory in acquiring and exercising their right to formulate their own definition of what it means to be African.

The constitution, whose adoption we celebrate, constitutes an unequivocal statement that we refuse to accept that our Africanness shall be defined by our race, our colour, our gender or our historical origins. [Applause.]

It is a firm assertion made by us that South Africa belongs to all who live in it. Black and White. [Applause.] It gives concrete expression to the sentiment we share as Africans, and will defend to the death, that the people shall govern. [Applause.]

It recognises the fact that the dignity of the individual is both an objective which society must pursue, and a goal which cannot be separated from the material wellbeing of that individual. It seeks to create a situation in which all our people shall be free from fear, including the fear of the oppression of one national group by another, the fear of the disempowerment of one social echelon by another, the fear of the use of State power to deny anybody his or her fundamental human rights, and the fear of tyranny.

It aims to open the doors so that those who were disadvantaged can assume their place in society as equals with their fellow human beings without regard to colour, race, gender, age or geographic dispersal. It provides the opportunity to enable each and all to state their views, promote them, strive for their implementation in the process of governance, without fear that a contrary view will be met with repression.

It creates a law-governed society which shall be inimical to arbitrary rule. It enables the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means rather than resort to force. It rejoices in the diversity of our people and creates the space for all of us voluntarily to define ourselves as one people. As an African, this is an achievement of which I am proud, proud without reservation and proud without any feeling of conceit.

Our sense of elevation at this moment also derives from the fact that this magnificent product is the unique creation of African hands and African minds. But it also constitutes a tribute to our loss of vanity that despite the temptation to treat ourselves as an exceptional fragment of humanity, we could draw on the accumulated experience and wisdom of all humankind to define for ourselves what we want to be.

Together with the best in the world, we are also prone to pettiness, petulance, selfishness and short-sightedness. But it seems to have happened that we looked at ourselves and said that the time had come for us to make a superhuman effort to be other than human, to respond to the call to create for ourselves a glorious future, to remind ourselves of the Latin saying: Gloria est consequenda-glory must be sought

Today it feels good to be an African. It feels good that I can stand here as a South African and as a foot soldier of a titanic African army, the ANC, to say to all the parties represented here, to the millions who made an input into the processes we are concluding, to our outstanding compatriots who have presided over the birth of our founding document, to the negotiators who pitted their wits, one against the other, to the unseen stars who shone unseen, as the management and administration of the Constitutional Assembly-the advisers, the experts, the publicists-to the mass communications media, to our friends across the globe: Congratulations and well done! [Applause.]

I am an African. I am born of the peoples of the continent of Africa. The pain of the violent conflict that the peoples of Liberia and of Somalia, of the Sudan, of Burundi and Nigeria feel, is a , pain that I also bear. The dismal shame of poverty, suffering and human degradation on my continent is a blight that we share. The blight on our happiness that derives from this, and from our drift to the periphery of the ordering of human affairs, leaves us in a persistent shadow of despair This is a savage road to which noboby should be condemned.

This thing that we have done today in this small comer of a great continent that has contributed so decisively to the evolution of humanity, says that Africa reaffirms that she is continuing her rise from the ashes. [Applause.]

Whatever the setbacks of the moment, nothing can stop us now. Whatever the difficulties, Africa shall be at peace. However improbable it may sound to the sceptics, Africa will prosper. [Applause.] Whoever we may be, whatever our immediate interests, however much we are carrying baggage from our past, however much we have been caught by the fashion of cynicism and loss of faith in the capacity of the people, let us err today and say: Nothing can stop us now! [Applause.]

Mr F W DE KLERK: Mr Chairperson, Mr President, my colleague Mr Mbeki and hon members of the CA, my colleague started by defining himself. I am also an African. [Applause.] Although my people came from Europe more than 300 years ago, I became an African through the blood of my forebears which drenched our soil in fighting for freedom. I became an African through the dedication and hard work of my forebears in helping to build South Africa into the wonderful country it is: A modern, developed country which can compare with the best in. the world. [Applause.]

For years, the many peoples of this country have been at each other's throats. On 27 April 1994, that struggle was resolved. Today we stand at the beginning of a new chapter in our country's history.

Today all of us in this Assembly have reached the end of a long and difficult road. We worked extremely hard, fought and clashed in this Constitutional Assembly. Negotiations often got bogged down. It was tough.

However, it was also a creative path that we travelled. There was method in what often seemed to be madness. Slowly but surely the CA crafted a constitution that is unique to some extent, here and there a contradiction in terms, but nonetheless, a final starting point for the new South Africa.

The trial run is over. We are now ready to begin the real race to our destination. We are, generally speaking, united in our definition of what that destination should be-a vibrant, nonracial, multiparty democracy, a prosperous country constantly offering new opportunities and opening new horizons to all its people, and a nation at peace with itself, reconciled with its past.

We are divided in our convictions as to the exact route we should follow to reach that destination. These differences will henceforth be the subject matter of our democratic contest in a fully democratic society. Within the framework of the freedoms which our new constitution guarantees, political parties, cultural communities, civil organisations, churches, universities, business and trade unions will be able to advance their cause to maintain their identity, spread their message, teach, trade, negotiate or whatever.

Within the framework of this constitution, we face the challenge of continuously normalising our society, of turning our backs on the bitterness of the past, of building, of developing, and of bringing a better life to all our people.

It is not a perfect constitution, but it is a reasonable starting point. The NP will, therefore, vote for this constitution. . . [Applause] . . .irrespective of its many shortcomings from our vantage point. We will vote for it, because we have succeeded through our inputs in achieving many positive provisions, provisions offering security for our cultural diversity and opportunities for all our people, provisions offering balance as well as a reasonable restriction of the misuse of power.

We will vote for this constitution, because it contains and enshrines many important principles with which we fully identify. We will vote for this constitution, because in the majority of its many provisions we have succeeded in improving the original proposals through our inputs.

Nonetheless, it was a difficult decision. There is much in the constitution with which we are not satisfied. In fact, we are in total disagreement with quite a number of provisions. In the final analysis, the decision to vote for this constitution was motivated by the following factors.

Firstly, in respect of the most fundamental issues related to my party's basic values and principles, we can truthfully say that they are sustained in a reasonable way and contained in this constitution.

Secondly, a vote against this constitution would carry a serious risk, in that much of that which is positive might be placed in serious jeopardy by a negative vote from the NP. [Applause.]

Thirdly, a long-drawn-out period of uncertainty and an inevitable confrontational referendum could damage the interests of our country irreparably. [Interjections.]

Let me stress that, irrespective of the last two factors, we in the NP would have voted no if we were not satisfied, in respect of the first, that by voting yes, we would not be violating any of the fundamental and basic principles of our party. [Applause.]

Today I do not want to concentrate on the negative. I will therefore confine myself to a few important issues, issues which made us seriously consider whether we should vote against the constitution.

The first of these is the fact that the new constitution sounds the death knell for multiparty participation in decision-making at the level of executive authority. Not even a very moderate proposal with regard to a multiparty consultation body was accepted by the majority party. I believe that in future South Africa will pay a heavy price for this in the form of a loss of confidence. South Africa is going to be in transition for many more years to come. The complexity of our population and economic composition, as well as the built-in conflict potential, can best be managed by means of a consensus-seeking model. This is now taboo. Instead of this, we now once again have a majority dominance model, and that is a mistake.

The federal council of the NP will meet against this background next week to consider the implications of this situation, as well as to consider certain other provisions in the constitution.

Secondly, the constitution contains provisions with regard to the right to life which are worded in such a way that the NP is drastically opposed to them. Instead of accommodating the majority of all South Africans' opposition to abortion on demand, the constitution in fact lays a foundation for it. Instead of making the reintroduction of the death penalty possible in our violence-ridden country, the constitution closes the door on it. This is a mistake and furthermore, I believe that it disregards the opinion of the majority of South Africans.

A final example of what is totally unacceptable, is the entire issue of employers' right to lock out workers. For the NP's part and for other parties' part, we negotiated fairly reasonably on the basis that the lockout clause did not have to be included by name. All we asked for was a reasonable balance between the definition of trade union rights and employers' rights. What is now contained in the constitution has been described by some as pathetic. I think it is unreasonable and indefensible.

I do not want to spoil a lovely day, but ... [Interjections.] I would be violating my con- science if I did not say that the handling of this matter was scandalous. The decision on this matter was forced by Cosatu, and members of the ANC who knew better, yielded. [Interjections.]

l also want to refer to the hon member Mr Leon in this regard. According to the press he is creating the impression that the NP supported the ANC in its position on this. I want to say that this is not true and that, if he is guilty of that, it is a political trick unworthy of a leader of a party. [Interjections.]

The NP believes that the current provisions with regard to labour issues do not comply with Constitutional Principle XXVIII, and asks that the Constitutional Court will look closely at the matter during the certification process.

I could mention other issues which offer a basis for a no-vote, but time does not allow me to do so. With regard to the issues I have referred to and the other provisions with which we do not agree, I would just like to say the following. The NP will strive for the improvement of the constitution. From now on the amendments of those important provisions will form part of the NP's policy proposals in each future election.

Against this background, everyone must know that, when the NP presently votes for the constitution, it is not voting for the shortcomings and mistakes in that constitution. We placed the positive and negative points on a scale and decided that the positive outweighed the negative. Therefore, in accordance with parliamentary tradition, we are voting in favour of the constitution. Eventually we are voting yes because we can say that, by standing firm, we negotiated a constitution that we can live with. In this way, for example, we are convinced that the final provision with regard to education does indeed give. full recognition to the right to mother-tongue education and that it ensures the continued existence of nonracial single-medium schools where this is justified.

We would have wanted a different and better formulation, but we are convinced that, also considering other provisions in the constitution, we also succeeded in our negotiating objective with regard to this matter.

The same applies to the property clause. If one traces the history of this clause and compares it to the final clause, then it is apparent that it has been vastly improved, improved in the sense that, as it now stands, it offers effective assurance to property owners of all sorts. Also here we would have preferred to phrase it differently. However, what we have before us allows me to say that we have essentially succeeded in achieving our negotiating goal.

In a lighter vein, I therefore claim, in Bafana Bafana terminology, a two-one score on the last three crucial issues of the negotiating process. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

I could mention numerous other provisions where we feel proud that we contributed to a better constitution, and so all the parties could do with justification.

In conclusion, therefore, I lift my proverbial hat to all the negotiators, to the high-profile ones such as Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, Mr Leon Wessels and Mr Roelf Meyer. But I also do so to the scores of members of Parliament and senators who have worked through many nights. I also salute the experts and staff who worked so tirelessly. They have, through their combined efforts, delivered a constitution complete and on time.

No doubt mistakes have been made and many technical amendments will be placed before us in the months to come.

However, this does not detract from the enormous amount of work done, and for that we pay tribute to the entire constitutional team.

And now a new chapter begins. The rules of the game have been determined. Our charter creates a safety net for all South Africans. It offers them protection and opportunities across a broad spectrum. Our constitution creates the channels along which all South Africans can assert themselves in a democratic manner. It creates institutions and mechanisms to maintain democracy, to fight corruption, to correct the injustice of the past, to counter discrimination, to enforce the administration of justice, and to accommodate our cultural diversity. Within this framework the NP todav states that it will make its full contribution to make South Africa a winning nation. We will do this by fearless opposition when necessary. We will do it by co-operating loyally when we believe that South Africa asks that of us. We will remain true to our motto: South Africa first. [Applause.]

Gen C L VILJOEN: Mr Chairperson, hon President Mandela, ladies and gentleman, I have to be fashionable. Everybody claims to be an African and, of course, I am an African too! [Laughter.] [Applause.]

In 1994 my party chose the way of negotiations. We opted for peace, and we opted to be a part of constitution making, because we believed that nobody else could serve the interests of our people better than representatives elected by our people.

We had many problems in this regard. We were small in number. In fact, we have only one real constitutional expert in our party. We found it difficult because we had entered into a specific new direction, that of self-determination. It was also done within an era of a very strong anti- apartheid feeling. The majority of this Parliament therefore often found this idea unacceptable. They talked about balkanisation, and the dangers of reviving ethnicity. Even within their own ranks, there was not always clarity on exactly what was meant by this idea of self-determination.

We had opposition from the left, from the NP which housed some Afrikaners who said they wanted to be more anti-apartheid than the ANC themselves. [Laughter.] In this way they often opposed us with regard to very valuable suggestions. Also, the CP fought us from the right, because they said we had moved the goal posts.

One of the most important problems we experienced was the fact that the concept of self- determination, as applied for the solution of problems in a multicultural society such as ours, is a concept that is still developing in the international world. This is something that we found difficult to apply fundamentally to the situation in South Africa. There needs to be more development in this direction.

The historical background against which we had to undertake this was also a difficult issue, or complicating factor. Somehow, our position was unique and it was often very stressful. On the whole, however, we can say today that it was a worthwhile effort and we have been very satisfied to be part of this process of constitution-making. We feel that the constitution we have today is a constitution, written by the majority, of course, for the Majority of the people. [Applause.] We often wondered whether this was not going to be a constitution of revenge of the majority, because we were at times worried about whether some form of minority rights for groups would be included. Today I must say that we are happy to claim that at least we have included in this constitution the very basic requirements for this protection.

Although the constitution is not perfect, and there can certainly be problems with it, it was written by all the people of the country and is therefore legitimate. Therefore we are happy to be part of this whole process. [Applause.]

Our mandate was to pursue Afrikaner self- determination. The question that we had to face was: From a position of disempowerment, from a psychologically disadvantaged situation, what is the best for the Afrikaner people in the new South Africa? How do we fit into the new South African situation? This is the one victory we had very early in our existence, namely to realise that the Afrikaner people are connected to the whole of South Africa, as the whole of South Africa is connected to the Afrikaner people. [Applause.]

Therefore, as far as self-determination is concerned, I want to start by conveying my sincere appreciation to all the parties, keeping in mind the trilateral discussions that took place before the 1994 election. I am thinking of the inclusion of the very important Constitutional Principle XXXIV in particular. I am grateful for the Volkstaat Council, which was established and carried by the State and could help us carry out this important research. I am very grateful for the work that they have done, and for the important contribution, particularly the last usable conference where international experts informed us about trends in self-determination elsewhere in the world.

I am very grateful to President Mandela and all the parties in this Assembly for the extremely sensitive way in which everyone dealt with this matter. I also owe a debt of gratitude to the Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly and the staff of the CA for the way in which they have accommodated us here. If we had dealt with this sensitive issue in an insensitive manner we would not have achieved anything.

For us the principle of self-determination is internal self-determination. It has two legs. Firstly it has a leg of cultural self-determination, and secondly it has a leg of territorial autonomy. As far as the second leg is concerned, we naturally have to admit that we could not in the time available reach sufficient consensus to pass it at this stage. However, it remains an ideal which we will continue to pursue, because we believe that that is the way in which we will really ensure peace in South Africa. However, we need a greater measure of Afrikaner unity in order to achieve that. The division amongst Afrikaners as far as this matter is concerned-I am not talking about political division-is an issue that has to be resolved before progress can be made in this regard.

We are therefore grateful that Constitutional Principle XXXIV has been included in the new section 235 of the constitution. The time to come will prove that we were right. We are grateful to be able to say we believe this important aspect will become more acceptable as times goes by, because Afrikaner self-determination is not an issue that concerns Afrikaners only; it concerns the entire country, and we are part of this country.

As far as cultural self-determination is concerned, we achieved full constitutional provision. Firstly we have the commission for national groups that has been introduced in terms of Chapter 9. This is a commission, of which we have been the instrument, that will be available to not only Afrikaners, but also to all the groups in the country. It is very gratifying for me to be able to say we think that in this way we have made a modest contribution that will also be useful to the rest of the country in the future.

We are also reminded of clause 235, to which I have already made reference. This is the principle of self-determination that has been included. I am thinking about the issue of the Bill of Rights and the idea of collective rights contained in clause 31. What more could we have wished for? We are grateful to everyone who has taken part in the process, also for the way in which the constitutional process has taken place so that this sensitive issue could be finalised so pleasantly-I wanted to say in a dramatic fashion-during the early morning hours of the negotiations. We thank everyone for that.

We have a tremendous responsibility now. As the majority the ANC should handle this matter correctly, and as a minority we should be responsible in our demands with regard to what is now in the Statute Book.

Of course there are also negative aspects of the constitution. We have a problem with the clause on education and the preamble to the constitution in particular. We initially hoped that Almighty God would be given greater recognition in the preamble than is at present the case. We spoke about it, and said in the Constitutional Committee that the people whom we represented felt very strongly about that. However, as a nation and a party we will not vote against the entire constitution because of that.

However, we feel that we have sufficient reason for taking a strong stand as far as the clause on education is concerned. I want to state this reason clearly today, to prevent my being misunderstood. We do not want apartheid schools, but if we want to protect and promote our culture, in which case the time that a child is at school is of crucial importance. It is with this purpose in mind that we would have liked to have a greater measure of control over Afrikaans single-medium schools.

Why, then, are we not part of the compromise that has been reached? I must be honest and say that I do not think it was a compromise. I think it was playing with words to circumvent a deadlock. We are a party with fundamental convictions. We believe that what is right, is right. We also vote for what is right and against what we think is not right. We do not want to play with words; it is not suitable for a constitution. The FF has a responsibility to give effect to the mandate that our people have given us. The mandate relating to issues associated with education not only comes from our party, but from the entire Afrikaner community. We therefore had an immense problem in this respect, and this morning, during the early morning hours, until just before four o'clock, held discussions with our executive in order to establish what we were to say in this regard.

The FF is honest and candid, and for that deserves respect. We believe that when we agree, we agree. [Applause.] In that case we do not only agree, however, but we also act in unison. When we differ, we differ. I am very grateful for the exceptional understanding that the President slowed when I called him this morning to inform him beforehand of the standpoint of the FF.

Now the question is: Where do we stand on the whole of the constitution? The fact is that there are so many positive aspects in this constitution which we have achieved, and we are so thankful for that, that it is impossible to vote against the constitution. [Applause.] However, before hon members come to the wrong conclusion... [Laughter] . . . I would like to say that we also have this very urgent and very serious issue, our main mission, which is to protect our culture. We have considered this, and we have realised that it is such a serious matter that we also will not be able to vote for the constitution. So we have decided to abstain because of the education clause.

We will respect the constitution. [Interjections.] We will work together through our principle of constructive engagement. We will carry on working together towards finding a way to make this constitution work. We are prepared now to say that this is the time for us to stop talking. We are prepared to put our shoulder to the wheel and start working so that we can create jobs and improve quality of life, because this is what our country requires most from the constitution at this stage. [Applause.]

Mr A J LEON: Mr Chairperson, I too am an African-an African by birth, but also an African by choice. This is the most exciting country in the world today and I would not want to live anywhere else. [Applause.]

The previous speakers have spoken eloquently and movingly about their roots in this country. I briefly want to touch on my own: Four generations ago, my great-grandparents fled the oppression of a distant country on another continent. But the land they came to was not free. While it conferred rights on some, it denied them to many. I am therefore proud and humbled to be part of a process of rectifying that wrong by extending those rights.

In standing here today, I am also conscious of the privilege conferred upon few people, a chance to speak to South Africa about a new dawn and about the ties that bind us all to a new democratic destination and, specifically, to make a judgment call on the constitutional road map we have drawn to guide us on this long and never-ending journey.

The completion of a constitution today, institutionalising the rule of law, the highest law in the land, marks our most significant contribution to effecting the dream of a democratic nation. This day must be dedicated to all those South Africans who gave their lives so that our country could one day call itself peaceful, just and democratic. [Applause.]

I would also wish to use this opportunity to pay special tribute to those people on whose shoulders I stand in particular, as does my party. Thirty-five years ago people like Helen Suzman, Colin Eglin and Zach de Beer broke the mould of White baasskap in a previous parliament, and formed a small party which said, in those dark and distant times, the following:

No state must ever again be so powerful that it can crush its opponents and remove at its whim the rights of its citizens.

On the contrary, it saw each South African as a unique individual, whose rights do not lie in the gift of government, to be given as a favour, and to be removed by caprice. It said:

We reject the delusion that a collective aim justifies all means and repudiate the demand that the individual should be subordinated or sacrificed to the community.

Fourthly, they said:

You tame power with power and you distribute it best in a federation and check it with a Bill of Rights safeguarded by independent judges.

This constitution today is certainly the culmination of an exhaustive process. In part, but not completely, it is also a justification of the efforts of my predecessors. I have been given this opportunity to tell the supporters, and also the one or two detractors of my party in this Chamber, whether the DP will endorse this constitution as it is written.

My party asks a fundamental question: Is this constitution democratic? [Interjections.] In many aspects the answer is affirmative. It entrenches, most importantly, a true separation of power and it provides the guarantee of three levels of government. For the first time in our history the executive is to be checked by a democratically elected legislature and by an independent judiciary. Representativeness, accountability, transparency and public participation-words never previously associated with the South African Government-are sprinkled throughout this document. Its Bill of Rights is one of the most liberal in the world. [Applause.]

However, we ask a further question: Is this constitution appropriate to the demands of a deeply divided society, a young democracy not yet characterised by political tolerance and a country which has wary international partners? We therefore have several reservations with regard to the Bill of Rights and we shall be obliged to draw these exceptions to the attention of the Constitutional Court.

We question the constitutionality and the propriety of the limitations clause, the property clause and especially the labour relations clause as they now stand. Granting an unfettered right to strike, unchecked by the right to lockout, gives trade unions in this country extraordinary power. [Interjections.] Cumulatively viewed, the labour relations provisions place organised labour in a privileged position above the reach of the legislature and of economic constraints. [Interjections.]

Indeed, it could be said that this Cosatu . . . this constitution . . . [Interjections.] [Applause.] That was a Freudian slip. I have got Cosatu on the brain, you see. It could be said that this constitution confers on Cosatu enough power to make or unmake future governments and to break the economy. [Interjections.] That is why we are going to the Constitutional Court-we believe that those clauses negate the promise of the constitutional principles of equal protection and parity for business and labour.

We also campaigned for many months to remove the undemocratic clause in the interim Constitution which prevents members of Parliament from crossing the floor on matters of conscience and principle. We are deeply disappointed that this section remains intact.

Furthermore, we believe that proportional representation is inadequate to meet the standards of accountability that direct constituencies would impose on Government representatives. We are certainly content with the instruments for promoting democracy and accountability such as the Auditor-General, the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission and the Independent Electoral Commission. We are unhappy, however, with the mechanisms for their appointment which, in effect, allows the majority party to appoint its own watchdogs. [Interjections.]

One of the fundamental principles of my party has been to advance the devolution of power and the creation of the prospects of a federal state in South Africa. Often in the Constitutional Assembly we were the lone voice countering the natural inclination of others towards strong central government. We stood alone sometimes in representing the views of many South Africans who share this desire. [Interjections.] I believe that the federalist elements of this constitution represent a substantial contribution by my party and those who have that belief. Despite our size and in the face of many odds, we have certainly carried that torch. While this constitution may not be as federal as we would have wished, hoping as we were for more exclusive provincial powers and fewer concurrent powers with the number of national overrides much more limited, it meets-barely- our test.

We have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: Does this constitution redeem the pledge of the Old Testament: "Justice, justice shalt thou seek"? We believe that substantially it does.

A constitution must be judged within the context of its capacity to protect and promote the interests of minorities. It has been said that government is free in proportion to the rights it guarantees the minorities.

Drafting another constitution, Thomas Jefferson said:

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Whether or not our constitution in fact and in future will meet that test has to be open to question, but we must act in good faith.

Having mentioned these reservations, there are certain specific contributions to be claimed. Certainly, where federalism succeeds, particularly in terms of local powers and local autonomy, we can claim much credit.

The Bill of Rights, though not perfect, is a graceful contribution to basic civil liberties, particularly in the rights to life, security of person, privacy and administrative justice. We do have the serious reservations I have mentioned, but we are proud of the human rights that are protected and the institutions of democracy that are established.

Of concern to all South Africans is our endemic and epidemic crime rate, and I am pleased to say that this constitution at last, and after some struggle on our and other people's part, ensures the prospect of municipal and provincial policing.

Most fundamentally, with regard to the chapters dealing with security, we have written into this constitution the requirement that the President, whoever he or she might be, will never again be allowed to deploy troops in a foreign country without parliamentary oversight. There will be no more secret wars in Angola.

This constitution shines a bright light in dark places. It allows our citizens access to information previously denied to us.

Finally, in the chapters on government financial management, we improved the interim Constitution substantially and send a message of fiscal responsibility and innovation to the international community.

Our decision to support or oppose this constitution was fundamentally based on our deepest commitment to South Africa and its people. We want South Africa to succeed. We want our people to prosper. We want our democracy to take root. We want our currency to stabilise and investor confidence to improve. We want to leave a legacy that is worth its name for the children of the new South Africa. We want South Africans to walk the road ahead with a common purpose, a common road map under a common flag.

Despite our misgivings, some of them fundamental, we support this constitution and all it represents. [Applause.] In the final analysis, this constitution will succeed if it provides a shield behind which ordinary South Africans can be secured in the fastness of their rights. However, it will fail if it is used as a battering ram to invade the fundamental freedoms of our citizens in pursuit of political ideology or social engineering or an egalitarianism which forsakes justice and liberty.

For this constitution to bind the wounds of the past, we require bold independent judges, states- manlike politicians and independent citizens. No constitution in the world, however good, bad or indifferent, can guarantee these qualities. Only our people can.

Our new constitution is not the end of the journey towards the new South Africa. It is an important milestone on a never-ending road. It holds the promise and the potential of lifting our sights beyond the valley of the shadow where we have dwelt for too long. May God guide us on this journey and may God bless South Africa. Nkosi sikelel' iAfrika. [Applause.]

Mr C M MAKWETU: Mr Chairperson, hon President of the Republic, hon Deputy Presidents, ladies and gentlemen, I have refrained from defining myself, seeing that each and every speaker before me has accepted the PAC definition. This brings us to the question of whether it is wise for us to continue calling ourselves a rainbow nation, seeing that everybody today has become an African. [Applause.]

The PAC would like to thank all those who sacrificed everything to make this document possible. Let me at the outset assert a few fundamentals. South Africa is emerging from a national liberation struggle for the restoration of the country to its rightful owners. This is why the PAC official slogan is "lzwe Lethu!" [Our country!]

An HON MEMBER: One settler, one bullet! [Laughter.]

Mr C M MAKWETU: That one is unofficial.

This scenario imposes certain expectations on a constitution which is said to be democratic. One such expectation is the solution of the national land question on a democratic basis. In this regard the PAC is pleased to see that the notion of an enforced coalition in Government has been dropped. The majority party will rule outright. However, it is disappointing that the Government of National Unity, which is now a farce, is still being maintained until 1999. [Laughter.]

The PAC supports the notion of co-operative governance. This has attempted as much as possible to centralise policy formulation at national level, with provinces involved on the whole in policy implementation. This is good for national unity and development. However, we feel that the late introduction of exclusive powers for provinces has given them too much.

We are concerned that the number of provinces was not reviewed, as we do not believe that the country needs or can afford nine provinces. The PAC has submitted the criteria which can be used to delimit new provincial boundaries based on a need to ensure economic viability, administrative efficiency, closeness of government to the people and the undermining of ethnicity. We are absolutely delighted that the redundant Senate has been abolished. The new National Council of Provinces.. . [Interjections.] May I proceed, please?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Mr Makwetu, from one African to another, you may proceed. [Laughter.]

Mr C M MAKWETU: The new National Council of Provinces is an interesting creation which has our qualified support. We will watch its performance very closely.

This constitution breaks new ground in defining human rights, as our Bill of Rights includes not only civil and political rights, but also socioeconomic rights such as the right to education, housing, health, water and land. Although these rights are not enforceable in the courts, our constitution obligates the State to realise them progressively. In addition, the Human Rights Commission has been given the power to request information from the Government annually about measures it has taken to realise the socioeconomic rights.

We must express our concern that certain fundamental rights have been watered down in the flawed belief that this will contribute significantly to the fight against crime. These rights include the right of accused persons to a fair trial, the right of access to information, the right to bail and, more importantly, the limitations clause. We concede that crime prevention or control is important, but it should be done as part and parcel of the creation of a human rights culture, and not at its expense. The PAC would humbly submit that while we should be tough on criminal offenders, we should be tougher on the socioeconomic causes of such offences, such as unemployment, illiteracy, poverty and apartheid injustices.

Allow me to come to our major areas of concern in this constitution. We said earlier that the PAC would like to see the solution of the national question on a democratic basis.

When our constitution entrenches property rights, this immediately sends wrong signals. It means that we are dishing out rewards for theft. Most of the land was taken through theft, robbery, con- quest and forced removals. It is still in the hands of the White minority. Africans, the rightful owners, are landless and are squatters in the land of their birth.

In a free South Africa the Minister of Land Affairs pays a White farmer R4 million for a farm that belongs to indigenous people, and was bought from another settler for a mere R37 in 1960. [Laughter.] In one weekend in April, owing to the fall of the rand, foreigners bought property, land and houses to the tune of R40 million. What about the landless masses of our people? Who owns this country?

While we agree that the present clause is far better than the one in the interim Constitution, it still legitimises land conquest and colonial property relations. The possibility that even the so-called access to land may exclude mineral resources is frightening.

This is aggravated by the fact that the constitution does not tell us what is going to happen to our national anthem. This will be proclaimed later by the President.

Our constitution retains a flag that was imposed by an undemocratic World Trade Centre process . . . [Laughter] . . . and has no real meaning to our people. This constitution, instead of rewriting our history and reasserting the true character of South Africa as an African country, perpetuates the historical lie in its preamble by declaring that South Africa belongs to all who live in it. [Laughter.]

We in the PAC are saying that it does not. It belongs to Africans. If one wants to be generous, one can say it belongs to all its citizens. These flaws and fundamental concessions make one wonder whether we still remember the sacrifices many of our people made in order that we might be in this CA today. Is the national question still relevant? The PAC has always maintained, even during the liberation struggle, that land wars are labour wars.

We have been concerned by the fallacy of trying to equate workers with employers, as if the two were equals. Workers need more protection. The employers' wealth and ownership of the means of production afford them an unfair advantage. We are pleased to see that the so-called right to lock-out has not been entrenched in this constitution. [Applause.] Our constitution must send a clear message to investors and captains of industry that slavery was abolished in the 18th century and it has no place in our democratic dispensation. [Applause.]

Education is critical to the development of our people and country. This country can ill afford to waste its meagre resources in pursuit of a Verwoerdian model of education. Public-funded education must be accessible to all in multilingual public institutions. Private schools and other fantasies of the privileged must be at their own expense and without any discrimination. Our constitution cannot afford to equivocate on this matter.

The PAC is concerned by the marginalisation of traditional leaders, traditional institutions and customary law in our constitution. Chapter 12 is vague, scanty and insufficient. More importantly, it does not comply with Constitutional Principle XIII. The PAC has suggested that in the medium term we should retain the provisions of the interim Constitution. Alas, our constitution writers are bent on a Western liberal definition of democracy. We think this is a mistake. We do understand, as the PAC, that some of the unpalatable compromises are due to the fact that the liberation movements in the Constitutional Assembly do not have a two-thirds majority. We hope our people will correct this in 1999.

Finally, we do believe that this constitution, despite the serious flaws we have highlighted, is a marked improvement on the interim Constitution. The PAC will, of course, continue to fight for the rectification of all these shortcomings. However, we must say that this constitution does seem to create a fair constitutional order, a constitutional state and a working system of government. My organisation, the PAC, will therefore give this constitution the benefit of the doubt by voting for its adoption. [Applause.]

Rev K R MESHOE: Mr Chairperson, Mr President, hon Deputy Presidents, distinguished guests, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, the past two years have been very hectic for the ACDP members especially, as we were thinly spread between the Constitutional Assembly meetings and our many other parliamentary duties and commitments. It was our sincere hope and desire that the constitution we worked so hard to help put together would be a lasting document that would be arrived at by general agreement of all parties.

We have shifted positions on a number of issues in order to reach consensus with other political parties without compromising our principles. The process was a great learning experience for us, which we will treasure for many years to come.

The constitution we have before us this morning has failed to accommodate many submissions from the public that were highlighted by two marches to Parliament by the Christian Voice that took place on 30 May 1995 and 3 May 1996. Everything that they requested and all the concerns raised in their memoranda were swept under the carpet. As a result, the objective of drafting a final constitution that was legitimate, credible and could be accepted by all South Africans was not reached.

During my first speech in this House on 26 May 1994 on behalf of the ACDP, I promised our President our loyal support in all matters that did not violate the principles of the will of God. I am glad to say to all South Africans that we have managed to keep that promise. As we debated and negotiated different clauses in our constitution, we co-operated, compromised and promoted consensus on matters that did not violate biblical principles.

A number of clauses that were promoted and endorsed by other political parties, which we as the ACDP feel undermine biblical principles, have been included in this document. Consequently we are forced to vote against it. I am going to highlight only two of them. Firstly the ACDP finds the subjection of biblical law to this constitution totally unacceptable. We believe that the Bible, that took more than a thousand years to put together, should have the supremacy over this constitution, which has been drafted by mortal and fallible men over a period of 24 months. [Interjections.] I cannot imagine being told . . .

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! May I just say that freedom of expression is entrenched in this constitution. [Applause.]

Rev K R MESHOE: Thank you! The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: However, that does not mean that members must exercise that right simultaneously. [Laughter.] We grant Rev Meshoe the opportunity to exercise his right now.

Rev K R MESHOE: I cannot imagine that a South African court would tell me I was being unconstitutional if I promoted a biblical principle that has stood the test of time. We believe that the word of the Lord is right and true as stated in Psalm 33:4. Therefore, all clauses in this constitution that undermine biblical law are not right or true and would therefore be rejected by all committed Christians.

The second reason the ACDP will vote against this constitution is that it undermines family values. The ACDP believes in promoting and protecting family values. We cannot build a healthy society while at the same time destroying its family and moral values. The family is the most important building block of any society. This constitution has protected criminals and those involved in sinful and unnatural lifestyles and behaviour, but it has failed dismally to protect South African families. With the high level of divorce in our country, the ACDP finds it regret- table that a constitution that contains nothing as a remedy or as a safeguard for families, which are the building blocks of any society, is being hailed as a major breakthrough by some elements.

The anti-family clauses in this constitution are going to contribute significantly to the already high divorce rate that we have in this country and, as a consequence, lead to an increase in the many homeless and street children. I can assure hon members that we are concerned about the future of the street children who come from homes that have disintegrated.

Because of our love for all the people of South Africa, we are going to do everything in our power to bring amendments to this constitution over the next four years. [Interjections.] This constitution will not last until the necessary changes have been made. We must promote family values and build our constitution and democracy on biblical principles. Until that is done, we shall not have started to build the nation.

Debate concluded.

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA BILL (Decision of Question on Second Reading)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Before I put the question that the Bill now be read a second time, I would like to draw the attention of members to section 73(2) of the current Constitution, which provides as follows:

For the passing of the new constitutional text by the Constitutional Assembly, a majority of at least two thirds of all the members of the Constitutional Assembly shall be required: Provided that provisions of such text relating to the boundaries, powers and functions of provinces shall not be considered passed by the Constitutional Assembly unless approved also by a majority of two thirds of all the members of the Senate.

In order to comply with this requirement a vote on the approval of the relevant provisions relating to the provinces will first be taken by Senators alone. Thereafter, on the attaining of a two-thirds major- ity among members of the Senate, the Constitutional Assembly as a whole will vote on the Second Reading of the constitution. Because a special majority is required in both instances, it will be necessary for members to record their votes using the electronic voting system, whether or not a division is called for.

Mr J CHIOLE: Mr Chairperson . . .

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Older! Mr Chiole may I assist you? I am of the opinion that your party's abstention from participating in this voting must be noted. There was a technical problem and I am going to give you the opportunity to explain your party's position. [Interjections.] Calm down, calm down in the back-benches! We have co- operated well for two years. Remain calm. [Laughter.]

Mr J CHIOLE: Mr Chairperson, the microphone is working now, thank you. I would just like to point out to you that the FF officially abstained, and it is my submission that these votes were counted with the votes of those who voted for the Constitution. I want to ensure you that we did not press our buttons, and I therefore submit that the result that was announced was not correct. I request that we arrange the corrections with you later if the electronic apparatus is out of order. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! May I have your attention, please? I am being advised by many people, but not formally. So, if anybody would like to address me as far as the procedure is concerned, he will now have the opportunity to do so formally.

Mr J R DE VILLE: Mr Chairperson, can the names of those persons in the Senate who also abstained, be noted?

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: I have a formal motion from the Chief Whip of the FF.

l would submit that, since we have had a wonderful day and it has been a wonderful occasion, and in order to place this result beyond any question of doubt, we should go through the whole voting procedure again. [Applause.]

Mr J A JOOSTE: Mr Chairperson, as far the Senate is concerned, I suggest that we also have a revote on the first question, seeing that we also had a problem with the abstention votes in the Senate.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: I will accede to this request, simply because we are engaged in the process of making history. The result is beyond question of doubt. We simply also want to get it correct technically. I therefore approach the Senators. They know the issue before them. They should remove their cards, put them in the slots, and if they are in favour of the question, they should press the red button. . . [Interjections.] Sorry, those in favour must press the blue button, and those against must press the red button. Those who abstain must leave their cards in the slots and we will record their abstention.

Mr H A SMTT: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: Some members left the Chamber after the previous voting procedure. I therefore suggest that the bells be rung in order to allow them to return to the Chamber. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: I will request the Secretary to ring the bells again. The bells will be rung for one minute. As a matter of interest, Mr Ramaphosa's vote is recorded manually. I am told that, as chairperson, I am not allowed to vote. I will have to do something to register my opinion. [Laughter.]

The Deputy Chairperson announced that in accordance with section 73(2) of the Constitution, a vote on the provisions of the Bill relating to the boundaries, powers and functions of provinces would first be taken by senators alone. In the 1996 event of a division not being demanded, the votes of senators in favour of the Question would be recorded in the Minutes.

The ressult of the vote was as follows:

AYES-80

ABSTENTIONS-3: De Ville, J R; Groenewald, P H; Van der Walt, B J.

The relevant provisions having been approved by senators in accordance with section 73(2) of the Constitution, the Assembly proceeded to vote on the Second Reading of the Bill.

The Deputy Chairperson announced that in the event of a division not being demanded the votes of members in favour of the Question would be recorded in the Minutes. The result of the vote was as follows:

AYES-421

NOES-2: Green, L M; Meshoe, K R.

ABSTENTIONS-12: Botha, W A; Botha, W J; Chiole, J; De Ville, J R; Grobbelaar, P W; Groenewald, P H; Groenewald, P J; Louw, L; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P WA; Van de Walt, B J; Viljoen, C L.

Question accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 73(2) of the Constitution. Bill read a second time.

ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC:

Hon Deputy Chairperson of the CA, hon members, distinguished guests and Africans. [Laughter.]

The brief seconds when the majority of hon members quietly assented to the new basic law of the land have captured, in a fleeting moment, the centuries of history that the South African people have endured in search of a better future.

As one, you, the representatives of the overwhelming majority of South Africans, have given voice to the yearnings of millions. And so it has come to pass that today South Africa undergoes her rebirth, cleansed of a horrible past, matured from a tentative beginning and reaching out to the future with confidence.

The nation has teetered on a knife-edge over the past few days, with reports of intractable dead- locks and an abyss in waiting. This was to be expected given the difficult issues we were dealing with and the tight negotiating deadlines. But are South Africans not a wonderful people to whom the words "deadlock" and "miracle" have come to nestle in comfortable proximity, alternately gripping the national imagination like the plague.

Be that as it may, we dare not in the midst of the excitement of last-minute solutions, forget the magnitude of the achievement we celebrate today. For beyond these issues lies the fundamental sea change in South Africa's body politic that this historic moment symbolises.

Long before the gruelling sessions of the final moments, it had been agreed that once and for all, South Africa would have a democratic constitution based on the universal principle of democratic majority rule. Today we formalise this consensus. As such, our nation takes this historic step beyond the transitory arrangements which obliged its representatives, by dint of law, to work together across the racial and political divide.

Now it is universally acknowledged that unity and reconciliation are written on the hearts of millions of South Africans. They are the glowing fire. They are the indelible principle of our founding pledge. They are the glowing fire of our new patriotism. They shall remain the condition for reconstruction and development in as much as reconstruction and development will depend on unity and reconciliation.

Our consensus speaks of the maturing of our young democracy. It speaks of the trust that has grown in the blast furnace of practical work as we together rolled up our sleeves to tackle the real problems.

Today we celebrate that coming of age. Long before the intense moments of the last few days, hon members as the representatives of the people decided that open and accountable government would be reinforced by co-operative governance among all tiers. Thus we stride out along a new road in which the preoccupation of the elected representatives at all levels of government will be how to co-operate in the service of the people rather than competing for power which belongs not to us, but to the people. We were therefore able, in the national interest, to locate government powers at a level where they appropriately belong and to ensure that the national Parliament is not the exclusive preserve of an imaginary national politician, but a workplace in which representatives from all levels can pursue their mandate.

Through the National Council of Provinces, the improvement of the status of local government and the style of government, based on transparency, participation and consultation, we shall ensure that democracy indeed constitutes government by the people, for the people.

The new constitution obliges us to strive to improve the quality of life of the people. In this sense our national consensus recognises that there is nothing else that can justify the existence of government but to redress the centuries of unspeakable privation by striving to eliminate poverty, illiteracy, homelessness and disease. It obliges us, too, to promote the development of independent civil society structures.

While in the past diversity was seen by the powers that be as a basis for division and domination, while in earlier negotiations reference to such diversity was looked upon with suspicion, today we affirm in no uncertain terms that we are mature enough to derive strength, trust and unity from the tapestry of language, religious and cultural attitudes that make up our nation.

With confidence we are certain that the individual rights and national self-determination of the South African people shall not be inhibited, but be reinforced, by the collective rights of the community. Through the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities we have found an innovative way of addressing an issue which, when swept under the carpet, comes back in other forms to haunt the architects of artificial unity.

We are extremely proud that the new constitution asserts equality among South Africa's languages, and that, for the first time, the languages particularly of the Khoi, Nama and San communities will receive the attention they deserve, after years of being trampled upon in the most humiliating and degrading manner.

Many new provisions on gender issues reflect the progress that we are making as a nation towards securing equality for our women compatriots who have for far too long suffered too many privations merely because of their gender.

Yet it is in actual practice that our ideas and intentions will be tested, and we have not shied away from acknowledging that we are a democracy with many other realities bequeathed by history. Not least among these realities is the role of traditional leaders, which is not only acknowledged, but is to be further elaborated upon, with their participation, in national and provincial legislation.

Indeed, we can go on and on demonstrating the new and higher level of national consensus that today's ceremony represents. What all this reflects is that we are at last maturing to become a normal society, founded on mutual trust, bonded by mutual aspirations and shaped by the reality of our existence, rather than the fulmination of a warped imagination.

In our racial, language, religious and sectoral diversity, as the weak and the mighty, we are one people with one destiny. Today we can proudly report to the nation that the interim mandate has essentially been fulfilled. Among other things, critical institutions such as the Constitutional Court and the Human Rights Commission have started doing their work in the most splendid manner, conscious of the fact that their first port of call is the people, rather than the Government on high. In reiterating their integrity and independence, the new Constitution reaffirms our commitment to the rights of citizens and the need to build genuine equality across the board.

The welcome transformation that we are affirming today will mean that we have to redefine the role of some representatives in this Chamber. With the setting up of the National Council of Provinces, many hon senators will enjoy the privilege of being redeployed closer to the people. Needless to say this creative approach derives in part from the seriousness with which the Senate approached its work, all the time searching for the correct solution to the question of their mandate and their relation to provincial government. For this we congratulate and thank them profoundly for their enormous contribution to the beginnings of our social transformation.

We say with confidence that the interim mandate has been fulfilled, thanks also to the critical role that our security forces have played in protecting our young democracy like the apple of their eye. The new Constitution recognises their importance to society, and we can say without any shadow of doubt that it creates even better conditions for them and other public servants to serve with pride and dignity in the full knowledge that their rights as citizens and as employees of the State are protected.

In the final analysis, the praise that we are apt to heap upon ourselves appears misplaced against the backdrop of the active participation of the people in the drafting of the new Constitution. The determination of this Assembly to ensure that the people played their rightful role, and the meticulous planning and execution that this entailed, broke new ground in ways of engaging society in the process of legislation, reaching out through the media, opening the process to inputs from across society, and going out across the length and breadth of the country for face-to-face interactions with communities.

The Constitutional Assembly reinvigorated civil society in a manner that no other process in recent times has done. Present today in the public gallery are representatives of almost every organised sector of civil society which made inputs into the process: the legal fraternity, women, local communities, traditional structures and leaders of sectors dealing with business, labour, land issues, the media, arts and culture, the youth, the disabled, children and wards, and many more. Beyond those present are the millions who wrote letters and who took part in public forums, from the policemen in a charge office in the furthest comer of the Northern Province, to prisoners getting together to discuss clauses, and to residents of Peddie in the Eastern Cape who continued with their meeting in pouring rain to debate the role of traditional leaders. To all of them we say: "Thank you for taking your destiny into your own hands.

We congratulate the Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly, the Deputy Chairperson, the management committee, on which all the parties were represented, and the staff for their dedication and drive to ensure that we attained this historic moment. Amongst us are representatives of the international community who have honoured us by sharing in this, our moment of joy. Yet the boundaries that might separate our countries cannot subtract from their own labours to ensure that South Africa achieves freedom, and that we emerge with a constitution of which we hope humanity shall be proud. Directly and indirectly, their contributions and their force of example provided the fountain from which we have drunk with relish. This Constitution is our own humble contribution to democracy and the culture of human rights worldwide, and it is our pledge to humanity that nothing will steer us from this course.

Ultimately, the lodestone governing OUT movement into the future is the unstoppable force of democracy. Hon members have accomplished what they have to the extent that they represented the aspirations of the people and the abiding values of the nation. In this way they were paying tribute io the shining example of those like John Madikizela Dube, Olive Schreiner, Rev Calata, Dr Naicker, Dr Abdurahman and others who, long years ago, called for equality and democracy.

Hon members were acknowledging the suffering of the many witnesses who are appearing before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and many more citizens who were dehumanised, maimed and deprived, but unbowed and unshaken in their confidence in our young democracy. They were recognising the indelible role of the pioneers of the negotiation process such as Oliver Tambo and visionaries within the apartheid establishment who were able to sense the momentum of history.

Indeed, hon members were paying homage to Chris Hani, Johan Heyns and other martyrs whose love for their country and belief in change inspired more than their immediate supporters. In tribute to them, we stand today before our people and before humanity to present this our new basic law of the land whose founding principles of human dignity, nonracialism and nonsexism, and whose commitment to universal adult suffrage, regular elections and multiparty democracy are immutable.

This is our national soul, our compact with one another as citizens, underpinned by our highest aspirations and our deepest apprehension. Our pledge is: Never, never again shall the laws of our land rend our people apart, or legalise their oppression or repression. Together we shall march, hand in hand, to a brighter future.

May I add that one principle influenced our approach in the negotiations that started at Kempton Park, and in the negotiations involving this Constitution. In adopting this Constitution, we discussed our strategy very carefully, and the principle that we established was that there should be neither winners nor losers. South Africa as a whole must be the winner.

This is a principle which we have observed over the past two years in the Government of National Unity. The majority party must not abuse its power and reduce other political parties in the Government to the status of being mere rubberstamps, having merely to yield to the decisions of the majority. We have advanced in the task of building national unity, because we have conscientiously stuck to and observed these two principles.

But everybody will understand that we have a commitment and a mandate from the overwhelming majority of our people in this country to transform South Africa from an apartheid state to a nonracial state, to address the questions of joblessness and homelessness, to build all the facilities that have been enjoyed for centuries by a tiny minority.

We have that commitment and we are determined to ensure that all the people of South Africa live a dignified life in which there is no poverty, no illiteracy, no ignorance and no disease. That is our commitment. We are determined to honour that pledge, and anybody who tries to block us from attaining that objective of carrying out our man- date is like a voice crying in the wilderness. We are going to use that mandate in order to better the lives of all the people of South Africa.

Having said that, we are addressing these basic needs in South Africa. I want to repeat what I have said before. We are dealing with a situation in which if one talks to Whites, they think that only Whites exist in this country, and they look at problems from the point of view of Whites. They forget about Blacks, namely Coloureds, Africans and Indians. That is one side of the problem. However, we have another problem. When one talks to Africans, Coloureds and Indians, they make exactly the same mistake. They think that the Whites in this country do not exist. They think that we have brought about this transformation by defeating the White minority and that we are dealing with a community that is now lying prostrate on the ground, begging for mercy, to whom we can dictate. Both tendencies are wrong. [Applause.] We want men and women who are committed to our mandate, but who can rise above their ethnic groups and think in terms of South Africa as a whole. [Applause.]

We have now adopted this Constitution, and its significance has been dealt with by almost all the speakers here. However, there are still concerns on the part of the minorities in this country. The fact that we have adopted this Constitution does not mean that we are not going to address those concerns. We will continue searching for solutions because we want everybody to feel that he or she is part and parcel of our efforts to resolve the problems of South Africa. That is the position, and the adoption of this Constitution is the beginning of our efforts to resolve the problems of this country.

Every day when I go to bed, I go there feeling strong and hopeful, because I can see the rainbow nation rising. I can see men and women who are beginning to break loose from the shackles of political indoctrination and are thinking clearly about the problems of our country. Those political parties which still think in terms of the past are lagging far behind the thinking of their own constituencies, and that is a real danger.

I would like everybody. Black and White, to think in terms of the country as a whole. That is the demand of the moment. I say every day I go to bed feeling strong and hopeful because I can see new leaders of thought emerging, leaders who are the hope of the future. [Applause.]

Next week I am going to address a very important constituency precisely on the fears which have been generated by the adoption of this Constitution. I say to the hon members that those whose expectations have not been met do not have to give up. We will continue to search for solutions, because the building of a nation is the commitment of every patriotic South African. It is the commitment of Blacks and Whites, and it is the commitment of the Africans who have emerged during the course of this debate. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! May I interrupt ... [Applause.] May I interrupt hon members' beautiful singing. The only reason I am pressurising hon members is that I want to prove a point. Mr President, the point is that in South Africa there is no such thing as "African time". [Laughter.] I say that because according to my notes I have to close the proceedings at 12:00. [Applause.]

Just as we delivered the Constitution timeously, we shall close the proceedings timeously. [Applause.] However, I want to make one or two statements and an announcement.

The freely elected members of the Constitutional Assembly have spoken. The hon the President of the Republic of South Africa has replied. May I remind all of us that there are 21 million South African adults of whom 82% would like to know more about this new Constitution. The responsibility rests on our shoulders to popularise this Constitution and make it a living document. [Applause.]

Further events will take place outdoors. I request that after the President and the Deputy Presidents have left the Chamber, members of the Constitutional Assembly will proceed to join us on the steps in front of the National Assembly.

May I, in conclusion, address you, Mr Chairperson.

l now want to address a single word to you, Mr Chairperson. You addressed a message to the many people who participated in the proceedings of the Constitutional Assembly. I therefore now want to reply on behalf of those of us who participated, the officials, the experts and the politicians. I want to do so by singling out two aspects of your personality which in my opinion are constitutionally relevant.

They are namely firstly that you did not on a single occasion make use of the privilege, the prerogative, to occupy this raised chair behind me. It was your suggestion that you and I should use these chairs in which we are sitting now, and that we would sit next to one another and that this would be the way in which we would manage proceedings here. I have said on a previous occasion that this took place in a spirit of primus interpares, or the first among equals. I thank you for that. [Applause.]

You also revealed another characteristic. You made a personal reference and I do not think now is the time for a bilateral discussion to take place between the two of us or for our attitude and spirit to be exposed here in front of these people. [Laughter.]

However, you revealed one characteristic which I believe is worthy of emulation and which greatly inspired me. This was your sincere wish and example to express multilinguality. It was a great pleasure for me to see how you battled with Afrikaans, to see how you had the newspaper in front of you and read idiomatic Afrikaans so amusingly incorrectly. [Laughter.] I saw how you read a headline of one of the Afrikaans newspapers about how a certain person was involved in a feud "vete" with another organisation and you read "in vette met" (in the fat with) [Laughter.]

You said there was no other language as explosive as Afrikaans . . . . . . because you saw how that person "in sy eie vet braai" (stewed in his own juice). [Laughter.] I listened to your amusing sayings, for example how you would say to me: "Verskoon my, ek gaan my hare kap’." [Excuse me, I am going to have my haircut.] [Laughter.] I heard how you called up some of your own colleagues and said to them: "Maar jy is in die verkeerd', want jy praat te min Sotho." [But you are in the wrong, because you are speaking too little Sotho.] I saw how much joy it gave you when Venda was again spoken in this constitution.

With those few words I say to Afrikaans-speakers and to Afrikaners, our prosperity lies in the acceptance of diversity and in the acceptance of the enjoyable nature of that diversity. [Applause.] Morena boloka setjaba sa heso. [God bless our people.] [Applause.]

0rder! I would just like to place on record that our visitors in the gallery will be entitled to follow the proceedings on the television screens. The proceedings are now closed, and if everything goes according to plan, this CA will never meet again. [Applause.]

The meeting adjourned at 12:02.