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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS-see col 526.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On 6 September 1996 the justices of the Constitutional Court had their say. The judgement did us all proud. Today we are responding to that judgement, and I ask Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, the Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly, to tell us more about that.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Mr Chairperson, Deputy President Thabo Mbeki, Ministers and hon members, once again the Constitutional Assembly meets, and I hope that this time we are meeting for the last time. We are meeting once again to consider one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history, the new Constitution that will become the law of our nation. Once again, before it can become a reality, it must pass the test of the Constitutional Court to ensure that it fully meets the requirements of the Constitutional Principles.

The return of the Constitution, which we adopted on 8 May 1996, to this body by the Constitutional Court has strengthened not only the final product which is now before hon members, but also the foundations of democracy in our country. The principle of the separation of powers, in terms of which the judiciary acts to check the powers of the legislature, and of course the executive, could not have been more clearly demonstrated.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of the clauses complied fully with the Constitutional Principles, and the high praise the Constitutional Court judges had for what they called "a magnificent piece of work", should not be overlooked But the return of a few issues that needed our further attention gave our country an important lesson in what a constitutional democracy is all about. The fact that the proceedings of the court were open to everyone, every South African, as. individual or an organisation, including those parties that did not see their way clear participate in the work of the Constitution Assembly, entitled all South Africans to make their objections to the court, and that is demonstration of participatory democracy.

That even nonlawyers could present oral argument before the court sets a new standard accessibility to the courts. The past three weeks have been hectic ones, although, unlike the previous round of negotiations, there have on been a few late nights. We have achieved our goals, and in doing so all the negotiators ha' once again displayed a constructive approach an may I add, political maturity that bodes well f the future of democracy in our country.

When the Constitutional Assembly met to receive a report-back on the judgment a few weeks ago, was agreed that we would confine our attention those areas which the court required us to amend while at the same time allowing stakeholders make an input and retaining some flexibility. The issues referred back to us were divided between two multiparty subcommittees under the wise and capable leadership of Mr Pravin Gordhan and Ms Mavivi Myakayaka-Manzini . . . [Applause] . both of whom have been given accolades stating that they were some of the best chairpersons around. That started Mr Wessels and me getting bit worried, and may I add that a few chairperson of parliamentary committees also got worried when they heard that Pravin Gordhan and Mavi Myakayaka-Manzini were some of the best around. I can indeed testify that they are some of the best around, but they must keep trying harder [Laughter.]

Work began immediately, in an extremely positive spirit, with all parties putting their position constructively. The openness and transparent that have been a hallmark of the constitution making process continued. Yesterday when the Constitutional Committee met for what we believe was the last time, we even had an unprecedented and historic intervention by members of the media who advised the Constitutional Committee on the quality of the English that we were using in the Constitution, and we applaud them for that. We happened to be dealing with a clause which dealt with the openness of a democratic society, and members of the media hastened to add that that society must also be accountable to the media. When we asked them to add that the media must also be accountable to politicians, they did not agree immediately.

It was with great delight that all political negotiators welcomed the return of the IFP to the structures of the Constitutional Assembly, albeit on a "now-you-see-us, now-you-do-not" basis. At times I even thought that it was on a hide-and-seek type of basis. At all times the input of the IFP negotiators was, I must say, helpful and realistic. In both the subcommittees the IFP was afforded the opportunity of putting its positions and of participating in the debates around the issues. I am also aware that political parties engaged in many hours of bilateral talks with the IFP. Mr Gordhan was able to tell me that they met with the IFP until three o'clock one morning, trying to reach agreement with them. All this was done in an effort to make the Constitution as inclusive as possible.

It is a great disappointment both for me personally, as Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly, and for our fellow CA members, to note that on this important occasion the IFP benches are once again empty. What a positive message it would have given the people of this country to have had all seven political parties in the Constitutional Assembly today.

The history books will, however, relate how many of us tried to include the IFP in the constitution- making process. I hope that political parties will continue in their efforts to bring the IFP on board in the constitutional development process, even after the adoption of the Constitution today. I am not going to give an account of how we dealt with the issues over the past few weeks. Those issues are before hon members in the amended texts, and have been discussed extensively in the party caucuses. While the process has meant that the final document has reached members rather late, CA members have been kept up to date with all developments in the various committees.

I would like to extend a special thank you to the few remaining staff members of the Constitutional Assembly for their hard work and their efficient logistical support. (Applause.] Once again, a special word of thank you to the executive director, Hassan Ebrahim, who remains almost alone, after the other two executive deputy directors have left, to finalise this work and make sure that the Constitutional Assembly concludes its mandate.

The new draft before members is the result of broad-based consensus amongst the parties. I believe that after we have voted to adopt the amendments as improved, the new text will be returned to the Constitutional Court. Once again all South Africans will be given the opportunity to object to those sections that they have problems with, and they will have an opportunity of putting their case before the court. The Constitutional Court has undertaken to give us their judgment as soon as is practically possible. If all goes well, the implementation of this Constitution will begin within a few short months from now.

But this is not the end of our work. A great task awaits our nation, the task of building an appreciation for the values enshrined in this Constitution in the minds of all our people. Ultimately, this is their Constitution. It belongs not to politicians and lawyers, but to every man, woman and child in this country. In order to become a reality, the Constitution, with its noble ideals of freedom, democracy and respect for every individual's dignity, must be more than a piece of paper. I call this Constitution the birth certificate of our nation. Now it is the responsibility of all of us in this country to ensure that it goes from strength to strength as our democracy matures. It must be a force for good in our society, a guarantee for human rights, fair play and accountable government.

To achieve this, people must know what is in the Constitution. I am happy to report that several newspaper groups in this country have undertaken to publish the amended text and distribute it with their newspapers as a public service to the whole nation. [Applause.]

This publication of over a million copies, starting next week, will go a long way towards making the Constitution accessible to all our people. There are also plans for the Constitutional Assembly to print and distribute several million copies of the certified texts, free of charge, in various formats and in all 11 languages. [Applause.]

The formats include a pocket-book Constitution and an educational guide in all official languages, as well as a limited version educating people about the Bill of Rights. However, even this will not be enough. All stakeholders will have to make a conscious effort to educate our people about this Constitution. This includes, in particular, the Human Rights Commission, the Department of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education, but also civil society organs at large.

Ideally, every child at school should learn to understand the system of government and the rights and freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution. Let us not underestimate the magnitude of our achievement. We have negotiated a wonderful document, and this we did in spite of deep ideological differences in a way that is a lesson to ourselves, our fellow South Africans and the whole world. We now have our Constitution. We have done it in record time, and once again we have done it under budget. Let us make it work, for it is a document that belongs to all our people; it is a document that is meant to enhance democracy in country. We put it before hon members and hope and trust that all parties will see their way clear to voting overwhelmingly in favour of this Constitution. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Hon members of the Constitutional Assembly, I would like to latch onto one statement Mr Ramaphosa made and draw members' attention to the fact that this document has been placed three times before all members during the course of this work.

The final print of this document started at three o'clock this morning. It was agreed at the management committee that we would follow this procedure, and in addition make available to members what we refer to as a road map, to draw their attention to the amendments that are being brought about in this document. Some of them are of a technical nature; all the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed. The technical changes were placed before the management committee and were dealt with and discussed at technical level. The substantive issues are indicated in the guide. These are matters that were finalised last night. We offer this road map to assist everyone in digesting this document, but we tried to keep everyone informed as we proceeded with the document.

Finally, printed on the Agenda is a resolution in the name of the Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly, indicating how we will vote. Once again we will have to vote twice. We will vote or the document as amended.

Mrs G N M PANDOR: Mr Chairperson, as has already been said, the Constitutional Assembly is meeting once more for the purpose of adopting a redrafted text of the document that was referred to the Constitutional Court.

Recently some commentators have viewed the return of the draft of 8 May in an unnecessarily triumphalist light. They fail to recognise that the process of certification was and is the most stringent test of South Africa's young democracy We are practising what is a unique first in this regard. No country has exposed its constitution making process to such a test.

In the eyes of the highest court in our land, we passed the test with flying colours. The judge; asserted this in their own words. They said that the draft national text, which was submitted to them, represented a monumental achievement, In their view, drafting a constitution is a difficult task, made even more difficult by the unique circumstances of South Africa.

The exercise that the Constitutional Assembly has engaged in since May 1994 has testified to the correctness of the position that was adopted by the parties that negotiated at the World Trade Centre The belief of those panics and particularly of my own organisation, the ANC, that a final and lasting constitution required democratic sanction and the view of the parties that there should hi values and principles which would allow for the testing of the content of a new document, wen certainly wise viewpoints which have produced : democratic constitution that is certainly going to rank among the best in the world.

Subcommittee I had five issues to revisit and redraft. None of them posed a significant dilemma for the negotiators, and it is our belief that they have been adequately addressed. We hope that we have had the final say, but, of course, we are once more at the tender mercy-we hope it will be tender-of the judges.

The first issue we addressed concerned section 23, which deals with labour relations. We believe that it is important to point out that the task of the court was to receive challenges to various provisions, to consider these challenges in the light of the overall text, and to measure the objections and the text against the Constitutional Principles.

The objections on the exclusion of the right to lock out were not upheld by the court. In fact, the words of one of the paragraphs that are relevant to this issue are well worth repeating. The judges indicate that the objectors attempted to argue that the right to lock out and the right to strike were equivalent. The judges stated categorically and very clearly that this view could not be accepted, as the ANC had asserted all along. However, the judges did find that the full intent of Constitutional Principle XVIII had not been met. The subcommittee has arrived at a formulation on the employer's right to collective bargaining that we believe is responsive to the requirements as stipulated by the relevant principle.

The second issue related to the table of nonderogable rights found under section 37 of the text. The text of this section, according to the judges, did not rationally and thoughtfully draw a distinction between rights that are derogable in a national emergency. Once more Subcommittee 1 has tabled formulations in this regard, and we hope that they are responsive to the judges' finding.

The third aspect which we addressed concerned the dismissal mechanisms for the Auditor-General and the Public Protector. In the process of deliberating these, we also re-examined the appointment mechanism, a task that was not required by the judgment, but which parties eventually agreed to look at. In order to provide for the high level of independence and impartiality that these bodies are said to require, the relevant mechanisms have been adjusted. It is our hope that this change adds to the stature of the two bodies and does not make them vulnerable to political trade-offs, which would perhaps have been avoided if a simple majority requirement had been accepted. Of course, the brief we had was to address the dictates of the principles, and we have done so.

The fourth aspect concerned the inclusion of greater detail in the section that addresses the Public Service Commission. Its functions and powers have been spelt out, as well as its provincial status and the role it has with regard to the National Assembly and, for provincial commissioners, with regard to provincial legislatures. Furthermore, the role of the commission in appointments, dismissals and other aspects of funding have been provided for, thus addressing the demands of Constitutional Principle XXIX.

The final issue concerned the impermissible insulation of a piece of legislation. The redrafted formulation responds to the need to ensure that all legislation is open to constitutional review, while also clearly addressing the specific elements that the constitution -makers seek to protect.

With these amendments, the drafters have sought painstakingly to complete the task they were elected to perform, and it is our belief that they should be congratulated, as the Chairperson has done, on a job well done.

If we had, with the first text, as the judges said, achieved a monumental task, our contribution this time must surely be judged to be outstanding and without fault. [Applause.]

Mr S J DE BEER: Mr Chairperson and Deputy President Mbeki, the interim Constitution in its postamble referred to a historic bridge which would assist in the creation of a new South Africa. The eminent Prof Etienne Mureinik, whom we lost so tragically earlier this year, posed the question, "A bridge to where?"

I am sure that were he here today, he would, to some extent, be satisfied with what has been achieved during this process of constitution- making. Significant parts of this constitutional text must stand as a monument to him and others who have worked hard at creating a just and democratic dispensation in this country. When we ask ourselves what has been achieved, we may note the following: South Africa has created a home-grown product which was achieved, in all senses, by the people for the people. It has served as a powerful reminder that a peaceful transition to democracy has been achieved. The belief that this can be achieved in terms of the Constitution sends out a powerful message to the world at large and. in particular, to institutions considering investment in our country and in our people. It serves to emphasise the status and the legitimacy of the Constitution, as well as the legitimacy of constitution making process.

Although it may be appropriate for us here today to give ourselves a small pat on the back, it is clear, however, that the adoption of the text does not allow us to rest on our laurels. The adoption of this Constitution should motivate all our people to work hard at solving the very pressing problems this country is faced with. We must now fly with the wings which this Constitution has given us. If we were able to surmount the seemingly unresolvable issues we faced during the process, I am sure that other problems can also be solved for the benefit of all South Africans.

This Constitution, with any deficiencies which we may discover from time to time, will serve as a unifying force in the fabric of South African society. The judgment of the Constitutional Court, and the ensuing efforts of the subcommittees of the Constitutional Assembly to meet the requirements of the court's judgment, are indeed a significant step in South Africa's negotiated transition to full constitutional democracy. These developments should indeed be an inspiration to all peace-seeking South Africans who have faith in the future of our country.

We in the NP are certainly convinced that this process has left us with a much improved text of the Constitution. So, for instance, during the whole process of negotiating State institutions supporting constitutional democracy, it was the viewpoint of the NP that in the light of Constitutional Principle XXIX the provisions governing appointment, tenure and removal had to ensure the independence and impartiality of these institutions.

The finding of the court, in the case of the Public Protector and the Auditor-General, that the provisions governing their removal from office do not meet the standards of Constitutional Principle XXIX, paved the way for determining that a two-thirds majority is necessary in the National Assembly, that parties after this could find consensus and that a 60% majority in the National Assembly is required for the appointment of the Public Protector and the Auditor-General. We believe that this is a major step towards a more democratic dispensation.

In Chapter 10, which deals with public administration, the major criticism of the Constitutional Court was that the powers and functions of the Public Service Commission have not been explained satisfactorily. I believe that in Subcommittee 1, in support of colleague Pandor, we have now succeeded in overcoming the criticism of the court. The province will be responsible for the appointment, promotion, transfer and removal of members of the Public Service in their administrations within the framework of the uniform norms and standards that are valid for the Public Service.

I believe that in this manner the independence and impartiality of the commission has been ensured, as required in Constitutional Principle XXIX, and I have the assurance that the requirement of Constitutional Principle XVIII(2) has been corn plied with, so that the powers and functions of the provinces will not be essentially inferior.

It has been a unique privilege for me to be part o: the process of creating a new Constitution. In the first place I would like to thank my colleagues in the NP for the privilege of being part of such a team. We have done our utmost, but if we felt today that we have been 100% successful, the principle of negotiation would most certainly no have come into its own in this process.

l want to thank my colleagues from all the other political parties. To me it was a wonderfully educational experience to work with them ii producing something of value for our people. It our chairperson, Ms Myakayaka-Manzini, our thanks and appreciation for the manner in which she conducted the meetings. Her accommodating style certainly contributed significantly to the success of the subcommittee.

We are really here today to take our leave of our Chairperson and our Deputy Chairperson. I would like to say that the leadership of these two will always be a highlight of the process. We pay tribute to them for their leadership and the way in which they have undertaken it; the way in which they inspired us, also by way of their sense o humour. It is a loss for South Africa that they will not grace Parliament with their presence in the near future. I think that I am speaking on behalf o all the members, however, when we wish both o them every success in the future, because we believe that this will also be in the interest of South Africa. [Applause.]

Mr C W EGLIN: Mr Chairperson, the fact that we can meet here today with the documents before us in itself is a significant achievement, taking the time factor and the scope of the importance of the work that we have had to do into account. Like my colleague Sam de Beer, I would like to thank those people who have been primarily responsible: the executive director and his staff, our many technical advisers, the members of the panel of experts, and last but not least, the members of all the political parties in the Constitutional Assembly. Each one, from the Chairperson and his deputy downwards, has had a role to play.

While the parties did not always agree with one another, I believe that the differences that wen revealed were no greater than one should expect to find in a vigorous, developing democratic society, because that is what democracy is about. What was important was that all parties applied themselves seriously and constructively to the task they were set by the judges of the Constitutional Court. The result of that collective effort is what we have before us today.

If I must express a word of regret, it is about the non participation of the IFP. I think it is important for South Africa to have a constitution that is fully inclusive, and to that extent it is regrettable. I also believe that the IFP could have made a positive contribution to the shaping of the Constitution and, by not being there, I really do believe, while they might have played up to their constituency, they generally failed the people of South Africa in this regard.

We are coming to the end-we hope it is the end-of a long road, the last lap of which started with the judgment of the Constitutional Court on the issue of certification. I would just like to say a word on that. I believe that the judgment of the court some two months ago was an absolute landmark judgment in the history of South Africa. It enhanced the status and confirmed the authority of the Constitutional Court as a critically important component of our new constitutional system. That judgment places South Africa firmly on the road of constitutionalism based on the paramouncy of the Constitution and the predominance of the rule of law.

From the DP point of view-we would all like to score points-we believe that the court judgment was a vindication of a number of specific issues which the DP argued before the court and which we had raised in the committees during the negotiating process.[interjections.] No, no, not on the lockout!

The CA has attempted seriously to put right the matters identified by the Constitutional Court. We in the DP would have preferred us to have used the opportunity provided by the referral back to try to improve the text in areas not identified by the court. However, taking the constitutional process as a whole into account, we agreed with the CA that we should limit our effort to putting right what I call the offending clauses. That was the parameter of the debate which took place.

In dealing with these offending clauses the DP would have tried to achieve what I would call a generous adjustment of those clauses in order to ensure certification next time round, because I am quite sure we do not want any more egg on the race or me constitutional Assembly. However, our generous approach towards the adjustment was met with what I call the minimalist approach, largely adopted by the ANC. While it is possible that the revised text will qualify for certification-this is by no means certain-any more than it was last time, when it was not certified. That lies in the hands of the judges.

In this particular regard I think even Justice Trengove, who was asked to comment on the new text, indicated certain warning signals in respect of clause 74 which deals with the overrides. He says:

The new requirements introduced (in the text) are rather weak . . . We are, however, on balance of the view that the new requirements probably pass muster and meet the objection raised by the court.

This is not a very convincing or convinced statement. Elsewhere, on another clause, he says:

The removal of the two offensive features in the new text's clause 146 should tip the balance back to compliance with Constitutional Principle XV 111 (2).

These are not very convincing or forthright statements coming from the CA's consultant. We would have liked to have seen certain changes made in the process of putting right the defective clauses. We would have liked to see the provinces get more powers. We would have liked to see the Constitution as a whole, and in particular the Bill of Rights, more effectively entrenched. We would have liked to see greater independence for the Auditor-General and the Public Protector, and the protection of that independence extended to the Independent Electoral Commission. However, we accept that in the process of negotiation consensus on these matters is not always possible.

There remains one clause with which the DP still has a very real problem, and that is the proposed clause 23(5) which deals with collective bargaining. Our problem with that clause does not lie in the essential core which says:

Every trade union, employers' organisation and employer has the right to engage in collective bargaining.

Our problem arises because certain other sentences have been added, a second and third sentence, which we have a fear might dilute that clause to the extent that it is not certifiable.

We have wrestled with this and in the end, we too have got legal opinion from counsel also directly involved in this negotiating process. His view is this:

As the Constitution already makes provision for the legislative regulation of rights subject to the limitations clause, the Constitutional Court would have to establish some other, different meaning for the inclusion of the contentious second and third sentences . . . to the extent that such an interpretation would imply that the right to engage in collective bargaining is to be treated differently and less favourably than the other rights, the additional wording would render this clause uncertifiable, as it would not comply with the Constitutional Court's directive that the right of employers to bargain collectively be properly recognised and protected .

This is merely another learned opinion, but it is a learned opinion of which we have had to take notice. Therefore, last evening at the Constitutional Committee, we had to vote against this clause because, on the opinion given to us, it would not pass the test of certification. Had that clause been put on its own to us today, we regret we would have had to vote against it again today. But what has been put to us today is not a single clause. What has been put to us today, is the amended constitutional text as a whole. It is against this background that we have to decide on our attitude.

We recognise that the final decision as to whether a specific clause complies with the principles, does not lie with political parties: it does not lie with the CA: it does not lie with learned counsel. It is going to lie with the 11 judges of the Constitutional Court. We are satisfied that when, in due course, our new Constitution is certified, we will have a constitution for South Africa that measures up to all the basic requirements for democracy, the basic requirements of representivity, of accountability and of openness, and a constitution which is designed to protect the fundamental rights of all its people. We believe that when certification finally takes place, we will be able to say proudly that we have a constitution of which all South Africans can be proud. It is in this context that the DP will vote for the adoption of the amended text before us. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask a favour of you. I can see that you are enthusiastic about starting to live this Constitution. However, we have to listen to a few more speakers. May I ask you to lower your voices, please.

Secondly, I call on the speakers to discipline themselves. I have a clock, but I am also watching their clocks. I do know that our clocks are in complete harmony with one another's. So when they extend their time limits, I know that they know that they are then using somebody else's time. So I ask speakers please to discipline themselves. [Laughter.]

Mr M BHABHA: Mr Chairperson, Mr Deputy President, the amendments before us today are an effort to meet the requirements as identified by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court in the main identified three areas in Chapter 7 which required detailing. The overall categories of local government, a procedure by means of which local government takes decisions, and appropriate fiscal powers and functions for the different categories. With these amendments, there is now a degree of certainty about the nature of municipal structures and the form they will take, whilst allowing sufficient room for the organic development of this critical sphere of government.

Admittedly, as members may well have noticed, it may have appeared in the course of the past two weeks that the negotiators of this chapter vacillated from one radical position to another. Perhaps this may even have amazed and frustrated our colleagues, but one must be mindful of the fact that Chapter 7 is required to replace an existing regime that has clearly become an anachronism with one that reflects the will of the people and is in line with the principles of co-operative governance.

One must also be mindful of the fact that a system has to be established that will accommodate the aspirations of cities that have budgets that exceed those of neighbouring countries such as Namibia, whilst at the same time addressing the fears of little hamlets such as Pofadder.

The product before us attempts to achieve all this in a coherent, logical and integrated way. The most remarkable thing about this process was the manner in which every role-player in local government was able to participate. This chapter is certainly not the brainchild of some academics, lawyers or philosophers who sat in a secluded and smoke-filled room trying to solve the problems. It is literally the work of practitioners who actually live and local government.

However, most importantly, this chapter is the manifestation of one of the most important principles of our struggle, our quest for meaningful grass-roots participation in the democratic process. The participation of organised local government in the National Council of Provinces will not only ensure that the voice on the ground will be heard at the highest possible level, but also that through this process the abundance of talent which exists at local government level will be able to express itself to produce our leaders of tomorrow.

The non certification of the text had one unintended yet pleasant consequence. We were able once again to rekindle the kind of interaction that only a negotiation process can conjure. We are also once again privileged to be able to be led by leadership of the highest calibre that vests in both the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly.

In the same vein I would like to thank Mr Jaco Maree, Mr Watson and Senator Selfe for the amicable and constructive way in which they approached this entire exercise. I thank Comrade Jorno, Comrade Sekgopi, Comrade Melanie, Comrade Pravin, Comrade Rudolph, Comrade Bulelani and Minister Moosa and his department for their commitment and conviction. Without their efforts we would not have seen the light at the end of the tunnel.

Finally, I wish the Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly good luck in his new venture. Go out there and "nail" the business world! With regard to the Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly, our loss is the Department of Justice's gain.

l am sorry for those people!

To all of us here today. Chapter 7 has established the structures of what is a unique and most important regime. The responsibility now falls squarely on our shoulders to accord it the respect it deserves and give it the necessary life. [Applause.]

Mr A G EBRAHIM: Mr Chairperson, Deputy President, comrades and friends, the PAC of Azania participated in the election with two very clear objectives in mind. The first objective was to remove a minority dispensation in the country and usher in a democratic dispensation. That objective, by and large, has been realised.

The second major objective of the PAC was the establishment of a Constitutional Assembly that would draw up the Constitution for the country. That process we are now about to complete. The PAC supports the amendments that are being introduced here. Although there have been some 40 amendments which were referred to us by the Constitutional Court, it can be seen from the paper we have before us that only fourteen of the 40 required substantive changes. The majority of them, in fact, required technical assistance. That is has been done. The PAC, of course, supports these amendments. We realise that on the question of collective bargaining there has been a compromise, one that we would go along with at the moment, after having discussed this with our trade union wings.

The PAC also strongly supports the move to give independence and impartiality to overseeing institutions in our country, especially the appointment and removal procedures for the Public Protector and the Auditor –General. We believe this is extremely important. But the most important element from the point of view of the PAC is the amendment to Annexure D with regard to the amendment of section 224 of the previous Constitution. I would like to quote:

The amendment of section 224 of the previous Constitution by replacing the proviso to subsection (2) with the following proviso:

"Provided that this subsection shall also apply to members of any armed force which submitted its personnel list after the commencement of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 (Act 200 of 1993), but before the adoption of the new constitutional text as envisaged in section 73 of that Constitution, if the political organisation under whose authority and control it stands or with which it is associated and whose objectives it promotes did participate in the Transitional Executive Council or did take part in the first election of the National Assembly and the provincial legislatures under the said Constitution."

This is viewed as very significant by members of the PAC because it now makes the Azanian People's Liberation Army a statutory force, and we believe that as a result of this our people will be integrated into a national defence force for which we have been fighting in our country.

We would also like to take this opportunity to say that the provincial powers that have now been defined in the new Constitution, as well as the powers for local governments, go a long way towards giving us guidance as to what is required with regard to the three tiers of government in our country.

In conclusion, the PAC will vote for this Constitution, but I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly for bringing this matter to finality. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the chairperson of the committee for the manner in which he handled the whole process. I also want to take this opportunity, on behalf of the PAC, to thank Mr Hassan Ebrahim and his very able and hard-working staff. With that I want to say that the PAC will vote for the new Constitution. [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN: Mr Chairperson and hon members, I wish to thank the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and all the . . .

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Mr Green, may I take a second of your time? I know this Constitution was built on negotiations, but never whilst members were standing. They were always seated when they negotiated, so will those members who are now negotiating in a standing position please take their seats. Mr Green, you may continue.

Mr L M GREEN: I wish to thank the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and all the technical experts and the staff of the Constitutional Assembly for their hard work and valuable input.

We, the ACDP, understand that the certification of the amended constitutional text is a technical process, and the strict legal test applied is whether the amended text complies with the 34 principles or not. It is the view of the ACDP that when a new constitution is written, it should be built on sound principles, but the question that we raise today is a fundamental one. That is, when a nation writes a new constitution based oa-34 principles, what higher law do we use to test those principles to ensure that they comply with the higher or supreme law ?

When the 34 principles were drawn up during the negotiation process at Codesa, nobody questioned whether those principles complied with a superior moral law. We believe that such a higher law does exist, and when we observed a moment of silent prayer this morning, it was to this higher authority that I committed myself. All law is enacted morality and presupposes a moral system. A moral law and all morality presuppose a religion as their foundation. Whenever we weaken the religious foundations of a nation we also weaken the morality, and then we take away the foundations of its law.

The ACDP participated in the constitutional process because we believed in our positive contribution throughout this process. Our involvement was a learning experience, and all the amendments that were made, both the substantive amendments and those that were technical, have our support. However, the fundamental objections that we raised when the first new text was passed still basically exist. None of those concerns were addressed. Allow me to raise just a few of those concerns which we raised the first time.

Firstly, clause 11 of the Bill of Rights of the new amended text says: "Everyone has the right to life." It became quite clear to us when we saw the Termination of Pregnancy Bill being introduced by Government that the amended text would in no way protect the children who are alive, but not yet born. [Interjections.] That is a major problem for the ACDP, If we as a party accept this Constitution today, then we accept that it is the supreme law of our land. But if this Constitution refuses to offer sufficient protection of the rights of unborn children, then our party has no other option than to appeal to a higher law which we believe cannot be ignored, and that is the law of God.

We believe in the sanctity of life and we maintain that human life cannot be terminated simply because it is unwanted or deformed. [Interjections.] If hon members could just allow me to finish! In terms of clause 2(1)(c) of the Termination of Pregnancy Bill an abortion can be per- formed up to the last day of pregnancy if medical practitioners are of the opinion either that the mother's life is in danger or that the baby would be malformed. The Constitution would, in fact, support this Bill. We have serious doubts about taking the Termination of Pregnancy Bill to the Constitutional Court, because, in testing the constitutionality of the Bill, the court will not consider any higher moral law. [Interjections.] The court will consider the 34 principles and will only consider the text. On that basis the Termination of Pregnancy Bill, we believe, will not stand a sufficient chance of rejection.

Secondly, the equality clause . . . [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! I ask those members who are so keen to participate in the debate to negotiate that with their Whips. [Laughter.]

Mr L M GREEN: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I will be brief. Secondly, the equality clause, as it stands now, will ultimately lead to the legalisation of gay marriages because it gives them equal status. As a party we believe that this will be immoral and wrong. We believe that the Constitutional Principles and the text itself will not be sufficient to stop this.

In conclusion, we want to say that section 27(1)(a) grants everyone the right to reproductive health care services. We accept health care services. We want to support that, but we do not support the inclusion of abortion clinics. We believe that that is going to undermine the integrity and the soul of this nation.

Therefore, we want to say that although we have enjoyed the process, we are unfortunately unable to vote in favour of this Constitution because of the principles and opinions we have raised this morning. However, we will commit ourselves to a continual process to try to amend the Constitution until . . . [Interjections] . . . it satisfies the conditions that we have set. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Ladies and gentlemen, may I ask Mr Rabie to address us. [Interjections.] An HON MEMBER: From the bottom of the ghetto! [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! No, come on chaps!

Mr J A RABIE: Mr Chairperson, the subcommittee had to deal with the amendment to the Constitution, provincial powers, the fiscal powers of local authorities and, of course local government in itself. Let us see what the situation looked like before the last round of negotiations started, and what it looked like at their conclusion.

As regards the amendment to the Constitution which the Constitutional Court scrutinised, the ANC wanted to push all of the parties into a minimalist corner. They were ceaselessly threatening to do so. The ANC reasoned that parties could not vote against an improvement, no matter how slight, of the original text, otherwise they would be nailed to the cross.

However, the NP wanted to avail itself fully of the golden opportunity presented by the Constitutional Court to effect improvements amply within the judgement. That is why we never gave in. But the ANC was hesitant to use this opportunity to the full. However, we did not accept this attitude then and there and we insisted on improvements.

The ANC is as scared as a wild buck of bird-shot when it concerns an increased majority for the amendment of the Constitution. Compared to the other parties they stuck out like a sore thumb in this regard.

However, it is an ironic fact that when voting power is needed in the legislative process, the ANC unashamedly flexes its muscles. In the majority of cases it amounts to blatant blackmail and lies when the ANC shies away from agreements.

We wanted Chapter 2, which deals with human rights, to be amended only by a 75% majority, and that where matters affect a province or provinces it should be agreed upon by a two-thirds majority of the legislature involved. About this the ANC dug in its heels. In the first mentioned instance the end result was that a two-thirds majority now applies in the National Assembly and in the latter a normal majority, but in the National Council of Provinces the approval of six out of nine provinces is needed.

Even so, we accept the amendments that have been effected. It is an improvement on what went before.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Mr Moosa?

Mr J A RABIE: This is not the National Assembly! Mr M W MOOSA : It does not matter. Will the hon member take a question?

Mr J A RABIE: No!

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! The hon member Mr Rabie will not take a question. Thank you, Mr Moosa.

Mr M W MOOSA: Why not? [Interjections.]

Mr J A RABIE: The National Council of Provinces is being included by the amendment to clause 1 with a two-thirds majority, and this is a good improvement.

As far as the procedure is concerned, 30 days have to elapse before a constitutional amendment can be proposed. Then public reaction is awaited. An amendment is not voted upon in the National Assembly within 30 days; firstly, if it is proposed while the National Assembly is in session, or secondly, if it is proposed while the National Assembly is in recess. A constitutional amending Bill should only contain constitutional amendments and nothing else. Only the Constitutional Court may rule on constitutional amendments. This creates certainty and other courts will not be able to have other interpretations.

The sections relating to the provincial powers of policing would have been worded differently if only the NP was involved. The fact is that the new text is an improvement on the one which served before the Constitutional Court and that elements are contained in it which offer provinces the opportunity to exercise considerable influence over the drawing up of a national policy on policing.

As far as local government is concerned, the new text of Chapter 7 is, in accordance with the court's order, in our opinion also a great improvement. The categories of municipalities are now restricted to three which are clearly defined and make provision for various types within the categories. The provision for an outright majority of votes by all councillors in the event of certain decisions is a victory for democracy and the NP welcomes the fact that the ANC at last could be persuaded to relinquish their demand for an executive mayor.

The NP is satisfied with the new clause on the fiscal powers and functions of municipalities. It is to be welcomed that two municipalities in the same area cannot levy the same taxes. Of particular importance is the fact that all owners must pay property tax. We believe this to include the authorities and owners of communal land.

Finally, allow me to thank our chairperson, Mr Pravin Gordhan, for the manner in which he managed the meeting. It was truly inspiring. A word of thanks also goes to the Chairperson, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, and Deputy Chairperson, Mr Leon Wessels. From the beginning, during all of the negotiations in the Constitutional Assembly, they ensured that we did not go for one another, as we did at Codesa, thereby sometimes forcing the process to a standstill. I think we have written a good constitution which the Constitutional Court can take pleasure in approving and certifying.

Mr J H DE LANGE: Mr Deputy Chairperson, Mr Chairperson, Deputy President, hon members, I am not going to address you one the contents of what we have been discussing over the past few days. I have chosen to do something much more difficult and that is to thank a few people.

I was hoping that after the NP speaker I would be able to say that it was an absolute pleasure to follow on the NP speaker. But I had hoped that the speaker would not have done what the hon Jac Rabie has done, namely to take what happened in the committee and completely twist it around. I thought one of the easiest things we solved during our negotiations was the constitutional amendment process. I never thought that there was any antagonism nor did I fight with any NP member or anyone else on the issue. We sat down together and we came to an agreement. That is not the version Jac Rabie has placed before us. I know it is very important sometimes to talk to the gallery as well. That is all part of politics. I must, however, tell members that that is not what happened in our committee. We worked very amicably, very well together and I cannot remember a single fight that we had at any stage.

Let me say that we gave ourselves a very tight schedule to finish the task that the court had asked us to fulfil. I think we can congratulate ourselves on a job excellently done. Firstly, I must say that I am of the view that after making these amendments to the Constitution, we have a better Constitution than we had before. I am very proud to be a South African at this time, and particularly to have the kind of Constitution have. I think it is one of the most progressive, creative and innovative constitutions in the world. I trust that we will be able to take this Constitution and implement and translate it into reality to make sure that our people who have struggled so hard and have waited so long for the kind of results we wanted, will achieve those results, and make sure that we do change everyone's life for the better. I believe that this Constitution creates the cornerstone which will enable us to do so.

Secondly, I would like to say that I am honoured and very humbled to have been part of this process. I have met many tremendous people from all parties. People I know are completely committed to our country and are prepared to make compromises even on things they hold dear. I would like to thank everyone for making it possible for us to do so. I believe that in years to come we will see that what we have done was the right thing to do.

I would like to thank a few people. When we adopted the Constitution the last time, I spoke a bit about the Chairperson and the Deputy Chair- person of the Constitutional Assembly. I want to reiterate that to me Cyril Ramaphosa is one of the great sons of Africa. [Applause.] I think that if we did not have him in this country, particularly in the beginning when we started our negotiation process here in this Chamber, we would not have been able to achieve what we have achieved, and we definitely would not have had the Constitution we have before us.

I realise that there is a much broader and bigger team behind him, but his intellect, his charm and the manner in which he deals with people have been the glue that has held us together. I think we should thank him. I know losing him is a great loss to Parliament, but we all know that where he is going he will achieve even greater heights. On behalf of all of us I would like to say: Thank you very much, Cyril. [Applause.]

To our Deputy Chairperson, a man of tremendous intellect and one who often works behind the scenes, but who was also part of that glue holding us together, I want to say that although he is not a member of my party, I think that Leon Wessels' leaving Parliament is a tremendous loss for all of us. I do know that he is going to achieve great heights where he is going, but if he ever wants to come back, there will always be a place for him. [Applause.] That is not an indication of which party list Leon will then be on. [Laughter.]

With regard to the Executive Director of the Constitutional Assembly. Mr Hassan Ebrahim, I think he is an absolute administrative genius, was proved by the manner in which he was able to hold this process together, particularly with the skeleton staff he had at times. I think we should all congratulate and thank him and his staff. [Applause.]

To the great ANC negotiating team that I was part of, which was ably led by Cyril Ramaphosa and the hon Minister Valli Moosa, and which included Pravin Gordhan, Bulelani Ngcuka, Mavivi Myakayaka-Manzini, Comrade Naledi Pandor. Willie Hofmeyr-there are too many to mention-Dirk du Toit and others . . .

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: And Johnny de Lange!

Mr J H DE LANGE: Mr Chairperson, thank you very much. I was part of that team. I think that they were able to bring to bear tremendous ability, intellect and skill, individually and collectively, and at all times this was done in the interests of our country. I must say that I never felt that we were looking narrowly at the interests of a particular party. We always put the interests of our country first. We were always ready to try to find a compromise. Now I just want to say thank you to my party for giving me the opportunity to form part of such a team.

There are also, of course, the opposition parties. Without their assistance and without their being part of the process and being prepared to play their role and to compromise even on matters that they held dear, we would not have been able to reach the successes we have.

In particular, I want to mention Roelf Meyer, because I think he has played a tremendous role. He has, at all times, stuck to the principles he believes in, but at the same time he has been very flexible in making sure that we move the process forward. So I personally-and I am sure I do so on behalf of everyone-want to thank Roelf Meyer, and also in particular Sam de Beer, Piet Marais and the others who were the leaders of their particular groups on this occasion. I think we had a tremendous working relationship and I thank those hon members. Without them we would have had tremendous difficulties.

Then I come to the experts, of whom there are many: Adv Zac Yacoob, Prof Christina Murray, Prof Johan van der Westhuizen and ail the others. I wish members could see the amount of time these experts have spent, day and night, trying to make sure that we move this process forward.

Sometimes we gave them the impossible task of having drafts available the next day and they were able to do so. So I say thank you very, very much to them. I am sure that what is good and what is honourable in our Constitution can be attributed in large measure to their hard work. [Applause.]

On a personal note, I want to say a very special thank you to someone I think is one of the great constitutional lawyers in our country, and that is Prof Nicholas (Fink) Haysom. I think that much of what is good, and much of what is creative and innovative in our Constitution, can be attributed to Fink and the amount of hard work that he has put in. I think the measure of the respect and esteem in which we all hold him is that I can say quite honestly here that every single party in this House has made extensive use of Fink and his advice and has asked him to assist with various matters.

Just as an example, only last week we were negotiating a particular document with another party. When we had finished with that document, a member of the other party asked: "Would you mind if we called Fink Haysom to have a look at this document? We would like to know what his views are." I think this is a measure of the esteem and respect in which he is held by everyone. From the ANC's side, and I am sure on behalf of everyone, I would like to say a very special thank you to Fink Haysom.

May I just reiterate that I think we should be very happy as South Africans with our new Constitution that we have drafted. We can be proud of this Constitution and I truly believe it is a Constitution that can take us into the 21st century, as a great nation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Ladies and gentlemen, we conclude this portion of the debate this morning, and we now enter into a stage in which we will grant political parties an opportunity to make final statements before Mr Ramaphosa explains the resolution printed in his name.

Mr F W DE KLERK: Mr Deputy Chairperson and Mr Chairperson, colleagues and members of the Constitutional Assembly, I should like to start off by expressing a word of gratitude to everyone who has brought us to this point and this milestone in the process in this second round of constitution-making after the finding of the Constitutional Court. My thanks also go to all the negotiators, but in particular to the NP's team of negotiators, to all the advisers who assisted us and other parties, to the officials who made everything run smoothly, to the advocates of so many people who made representations, who assisted the Constitutional Court in drawing their conclusions, and in particular to the team of advocates who put forward on behalf of the NP those matters which we submitted. Then my thanks also go to the president and the members of the Constitutional Court, who devoted their attention to the important task with great care and urgency.

The NP extends its best wishes to the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson, who now wish to alter the recipe of the gravy which they like and who will, in future receive private sector gravy instead of this gravy. We want to wish them everything of the best when the time comes for them to enter the private sector completely.

The very fact that we are, once again, debating our new Constitution is, in itself, visible proof of an all-important reality of the new South Africa: The Republic of South Africa has become and will remain a constitutional state, a "regstaat". Parliament is no longer supreme. Governments can no longer do as they like. All of us are now subject to a value system and a set of rules of which our nation and our country may be justly proud.

We have already rejoiced about all this. in May this year, and rightly so. Today, a little more humility seems to be indicated. After all, we did not get it absolutely right the first time. However, I believe that this time round, we will succeed. We all look forward to the next momentous events- certification and then promulgation. When that happens, we shall have come to the end of the first phase of our constitutional development, initiated by the first tentative negotiations in the early 1990s. Although we will be entitled to look back on this first phase with reasonable satisfaction, we will not be able to enjoy the luxury of sitting back and relaxing.

There will be a number of important tasks at hand. The implementation of a number of aspects will require immediate attention. Consequential legislation and parliamentary Rules will have to be adopted. Provincial constitutions will move to the top of the agenda, at least in some provinces. With regard to these and many other tasks, the NP can be relied upon for constructive co-operation and honest continued negotiation.

More important than the immediate practical tasks at hand will be the challenge to uphold our new Constitution, not only to the letter, but also in its spirit and its ethos, and to make it a living document. As it is now formulated, our new Constitution reflects numerous compromises. None of the parties in this Assembly would have written it as it stands. None of us is entirely happy. All of us hold strong views on important issues which are either not contained in the new final text or not accommodated to our full satisfaction.

The question of how the various parties would like to deal with their dissatisfactions will there- fore arise inevitably. How each of us finally deals with this question could have a profound effect on our country's future. I believe that there are a few fundamental guidelines on which we need to agree in this regard. To my mind, they would include the following.

It is the inalienable right of each and every party to advocate amendment of the Constitution and also to seek voters' support for such proposals. Nobody wants a stagnant constitution. Nonetheless, I believe all parties should refrain from undermining the Constitution as it now stands or as it may be amended from time to time. Parties in power particularly-whether it be the NP in the Western Cape, the IFP in KwaZulu-Natal and the ANC in the other provinces and centrally-may all easily fall into this trap of giving our interpretation, from a subjective point of view, to the Constitution. This could happen through narrow and biased interpretations reflected in executive decisions and legislative proposals to suit our own subjective viewpoints.

The mere fact that individuals and organisations have the right of recourse to the Constitutional Court does not exonerate those in power from upholding everybody's constitutional rights in a fair and objective manner. In the final analysis, I believe that there is one overriding principle to which our future actions in respect of and in terms of the Constitution should be made subject. That is the need to honour fundamental agreements and not to disturb the delicate balance which we have achieved in our negotiated Constitution.

These fundamental agreements form the very foundation not only of the Constitution, but also of the whole process of reconciliation. These agreements unlock the door to the new dispensation. Time does not allow me to identify all of them. Some of them relate to emotive issues such as education, language and culture, others to the counterbalancing mechanisms for preventing the misuse of power. Some relate to the need to close the book on the bitterness of the past, and others relate to the need for inclusivity in decision-making processes. All these fundamentals need to be honoured at all times. Any effort to disregard them may have catastrophic consequences.

Today I renew my party's commitment to upholding our Constitution and to honouring at all times the fundamental agreements which have brought us to this milestone in our history. I also renew my party's commitment to making our new Constitution the foundation of our new South Africa. If we implement and uphold the many noble sentiments and proven principles included in our Constitution, then it will achieve its deeper purpose of bringing a better life to all our people, of making our country a winning country.

We will once again vote for the Constitution. [Applause.]

Gen C L VILJOEN: Mr Chairperson, I would like to join all the previous speakers in the thanks they expressed towards everyone who helped shape this Constitution, particularly for the sincere co-operation that existed between all the parties.

I think that today we must be honest when we say that writing this Constitution not only brought us a new Constitution, but was a bridge-building operation which to a large extent succeeded in creating working relationships between people who previously did not know one another at all. I would therefore like to express the hope that these bridges that were built and the friendships and working relationships that originated in this manner will last as long as the Constitution does in the future.

The proposal as a whole is before us. As far as the basic aspects are concerned, the FF's position as it was on 8 May remains unchanged. On that day I expressed appreciation for the sensitive manner in which all the parties accepted the new school of thought of a principle of self-determination and eventually ensured basic provision for it in this Constitution. I am referring to clauses 30,31,185 and 235. We are very grateful for that.

On 8 May we had a problem with clause 29, which deals with education. Single-medium schools are the issue here. We had a mandate and could unfortunately not support the vague provision made for it in the Constitution. At that stage we therefore abstained from voting. The State eventually received the right to be able to decide whether there will single-medium Afrikaans schools for our people.

At that stage we could not consult the people from whom we received the mandate in time to determine whether the compromise struck between the NP and the ANC would possibly be acceptable to them. At that stage we could not deviate from our mandate, and for that reason we abstained from voting.

None of the positive or negative aspects that I mentioned during that discussion on 8 May was referred back to us by the Constitutional Court, and they were therefore not discussed again. The FF's position therefore remains unchanged, apart from the fact that we have had an opportunity to test the mandate with regard to clause 29.

In this regard I would merely like to mention three issues. Firstly, the united group from the Afrikaner ranks that deals with education, is still together. Secondly, seriousness with regard to education is increasing. People are still as serious about the matter. Thirdly, there have already been clear developments that support or confirm the concern we expressed on 8 May.

This is a real danger if we listen to the discussions on education legislation and to what was said in the House during the past week with regard to the removal of language ethnicity in our tertiary institutions. If that is the case, it is clear to me that our fears concerning clause 29 are being realised. It is also clear that if that provision is not correctly applied, the new South Africa will not be in line with world trends with regard to the right to education of minority groups. Today, 11 October, the situation is therefore stronger than it was on 8 May. The FF will therefore maintain its previous standpoint.

Now I would like to talk about the amendments. Having gone through this negotiating exercise on the amendments, we must admit today that the Constitutional Court has forced us to improve the Constitution and we are very happy with the way we have gone about it. We agree with Mr Colin Eglin that we have not really gone far enough in liberally correcting what has been pointed out to us by the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court has expressed certain criticisms about the local government factor. This is the one point that I want to single out today as a criticism from the FF. We want to put on record our disappointment at the fact that we have not gone far enough on the issue of local government. We have missed an opportunity to have a tailor-made local government system close to the people, the way the people of each community prefer it to be. If we look today at the unhappy incident at the Marconi Beam squatter camp, which was destroyed by fire some time ago, leaving 400 unfortunate people homeless, then we realise the importance of a local government system that is close to the people and that has the confidence of the people, a local government system that not only speaks on their behalf, but also exercises discipline within such a community in order to prevent disasters of this nature.

Whether one goes to the more organised built-up townships, the rich areas of Houghton or Waterkloof, the vast and sparsely populated areas ' of the former homelands or the intensively cultivated agricultural areas of the Free State, one today realises that what the Constitutional Court gave back to us was the chance to provide for more categories of local government, and I maintain that we have failed to do that. Claud Ake has said that Africa is still a communal society, and it is this communalism which defines the people's perception of self-interest, their freedom and their location in the social whole. My people and I share this notion of communality with our fellow Africans, and we warn today that we are not happy with the amendments as they stand at the moment, and we do not fee] that we have gone far enough in bringing government closer to the people so that it can be applied more directly at local government level.

Mr Z I NCINANE: Wawukhe wahlala eskwatini wena? [Have you ever stayed in a squatter camp?]

Gen C L VILJOEN: We would also like to say that that we are not quite happy with the municipal fiscal powers in clause 229. The FF would like to have its objection recorded to the fact that district councils might acquire the right through national legislation to levy property tax on agricultural land. If all the land in the country were privately owned, this would be possible, but how are we going to deal with the communal situation?

I would also like to say that the way in which the issue of traditional leaders is dealt with in clause 212(1) is not satisfactory at the moment. The position of traditional leaders in local government should be much clearer than it is at the moment. In fact it is clear that there is no position for traditional leaders in local government. I think this is exactly what we ought to have dealt with. As the court has put it very clearly, we need some infusion into local government systems of the traditional leader system without affecting the basic democratic characteristics of our Constitution.

In conclusion, I would like to say that a constitution is a solemn agreement. It is an agreement that we all have to keep. We feel that inclusivity is a problem. We therefore call on the ANC and on the IFP to settle their differences so that, in future, we can have a unanimous view of the Constitution in this country.

This Constitution, at the moment, is only democracy in theory. The FF offers, firstly, a responsible approach in the application of this theory. Secondly. we offer constructiveness in seeking the real formula for the new South Africa. Thirdly, we offer our preparedness to improve and to keep amending, if necessary, the Constitution, in order to ensure the best possible Constitution for our circumstances. On the other hand, the FF demands speedy and honest progress in the application of what has been put into this Constitution, especially regarding what we are mandated to pursue, which is the issue of self-determination, so that we can coexist peacefully.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the opportunity to participate in this constitution-making process. I wish you as Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson the best of luck in your new directions. May we all work together, now that we have written the Constitution, to make it a living Constitution for all of us, so that this country will be a happy place for everybody to live in. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Colleagues, the DP had prepared two speeches for this slot. Mr Tony Leon was the victim of a lockout, because of the SAA strike, and Mr James Selfe was prepared to stand in for him. He will no longer be delivering that speech, and I believe that we can ask him to circulate it amongst members for reading. I now call upon Mr Leon to address us. [Interjections.]

Mr A J LEON: Mr Chairperson, there is a certain irony in being a victim of a lockout which was instituted by the Government of the Republic of South Africa against a trade union which is overwhelmingly white . . . [Interjections] . . . be- cause they had to deal with the realities, contrary to the arguments given earlier on about what the lockout was intended for. Of the 10 major issues on which we, as a party, contested certification, the Constitutional Court upheld six of our central arguments and contentions.

Mr J H DE LANGE: Oh, nonsense!

Mr A J LEON: I suggest that that member read the judgment. Undoubtedly the final Constitution is a far better document because of the certification process than it would have been without it. While the amendments and refinements contained in today's Bill do not, in our view, go far enough to create the steel girders and iron barriers necessary to protect the hard-won rights and freedoms enshrined in this Constitution, they certainly are far better than certain previous provisions which were too often constructed of little more than paper-mache.

There is, however, as was indicated last night by my colleague Mr Eglin, one issue that still continues to bedevil this Constitution. I refer, in fact, to two clauses which relate to labour relations. It is a case, I am afraid, of the ANC-and now, unfortunately, the NP as well- seeing the Constitution's purpose as little more than being, on certain occasions, the legal arm of one group, in this case Cosatu.

Neither the Government nor the Constitution should be the political arm of any faction, group or vested interest, except the people of South Africa as a whole. That is why we took those labour relations issues to the Constitutional Court and were directly vindicated on two of them and indirectly vindicated on a third. That is also why we are so vehement in our opposition to the new formulations in clause 23(5) and (6), and must reserve our rights to pursue this matter later on in the appropriate forum.

However, that being said, my party celebrates the completion by the Constitutional Assembly of this monumental task. As a minority party, we have sufficient faith and trust in the very process and the very Constitution which we have helped to create. That the majority in this Chamber and in Parliament will be as bound to the spirit and purpose of this Constitution and the historic compromises reflected by this document is also our profound hope. That is something that we have to take on trust.

It is also as well to remind ourselves of the question-and it is an important question which is not answered by a constitution itself: Why should a democratically elected majority government or parliament need the constraint of a constitution at all, since it enjoys a direct mandate from the people themselves? This question is central to what we do in the lime hereafter. It is answered, in one part, by the great American James Madison, who spoke nearly 200 years ago, so hon members must bear in mind that the sexist language does not apply to us, but the message does. He said:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

I hope, and it is our profound wish, that this Constitution does precisely that. But getting the balance right cannot be thrust onto the Constitution alone. It requires a spirit of moderation, self-restraint and continual compromise which cannot, at all times, be left to courts of law or to bills of rights, but depends on the political will reflected in this Chamber itself.

The consequence of the adoption of this constitutional Bill will mean that after today South Africa no longer enjoys the choice of deciding whether to go forward or to go backwards to a preconstitutional phase. There are now only different routes to one constitutional destination, and we look forward with vigour to participating in that journey.

Mnu C M MAKWETU: Mhlalingaphambili, okokuqala ndithanda ukuthi ndlela-ntle kuMhlalingaphambili neSekela lakhe. Ngaphezulu ndibanqwenelela okuhle apho baya khona. Ngaphezulu ndithi. xa kwakhiwa indlu ngumfazi nendoda baye baxabane bade babethane, kanti ekugqityweni kwayo loo ndlu baza kumbambazelana imihlana. Nathi ke siyayigqiba le ndlu namhlanje. Siyababulela ke ngenxaxheba abathe bayithatha ekuyakheni le ndlu.

Okwesibini siyi-PAC siye saxhalaba xa kiithiwa lo Mgaqo-siseko ubuyiselwa kwakuthi, ngakumbi nangakumbi xa ububuyiselwa kusithiwa makuthiwe chatha amagunya kumaphondo, ekubeni thina sasinenkolo yokuba sele benikwe kakhulu. Kuthe ke kuba singabantu abaqhele ukusithobela isininzi sathi masibe nxamnye nani ekwenzeni le nguqulelo.

Okwesithathu sinenkolo kwakhona yokuba, ukuze ucombuluke kakuhle urncimbi wamakhosi mawungagqitywa calanye. Amakhosi makangagqityelwa engekho kwaye nawo awanalo ilungelo lokugqiba abanye bengekho. Makadityaniswe la macala obupolitika, uxoxwe lo mcimbi ngokuzeleyo, kuba sekucacile ukuba ubukhosi asingekhe sibucingele nje into yokuba buza kuphela. Buya kusoloko bukho bukunye nathi. Ukuba ke asiyilungisi le nyewe, iza kuhamba iharnbe isixake. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)

[Mr C M MAKWETU: Mr Chairperson, firstly I would like to bid the Chairperson and his Deputy farewell. Furthermore, I wish them the best wherever they are going. I would like to say that when a man and his wife are building a house they usually quarrel, sometimes to the point of becoming physical. However, when the building of the house is complete, they start patting each other on the back. Today we too have finished building this house. We are very grateful to them for the part they played in the building of this house.

Secondly, we in the PAC were quite worried when this Constitution was returned to us, especially when we heard that it was being returned with an instruction that more powers should be given to the provinces, while we were of the opinion that they had already been given too much. However, because we are people who are used to respecting the decision of the majority, we decided to support you in making this change.

Thirdly, we believe also that the issue of traditional leaders can only be finalised when it is not unilaterally decided upon. The traditional leaders should not be decided for, and they, too, have no right to decide in the absence of other parties. These two must be brought together so that this matter can be discussed fully, because it is clear that chieftainship cannot be wished away. It will always be there. If we do not settle this matter, it will create problems for us in the future.]

Having said that, I would like to add that the PAC of Azania, from the very beginning, called for the establishment of an elected constituent assembly to draw up a new no racial democratic constitution.

This Constitution must safeguard and protect the legitimate rights of all citizens without discrimination in any form. Given our past, it must be a constitution which entrenches human rights and ensures their implementation. In the process of drawing up the new Constitution, which hope- fully will be certified by the Constitutional Court, the PAC was guided by the principle that it must not only guarantee human rights and entrench democracy, but, more importantly, must pave the way for redressing the consequences of the discriminatory policies of the past and correcting the imbalances.

In the view of the PAC, the Constitution before us does address some of these issues, but leaves a lot to be desired, especially on the basic question of land. The new Constitution is not what we would have liked it to be. However, it is what we have before us. It is the best we could get under the circumstances, given that the form of transformation required a give-and-take situation. In the coming years we will debate whether we gave more than we got. or vice versa. Despite these obvious shortcomings we will hopefully have a new democratic Constitution which will apply to all of us on an equal basis.

The PAC will therefore vote for the Constitution and pledge to uphold it. [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN: Mr Chairperson . . . [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! [Interjections.] One minute, please, Louis.

May I just draw hon members attention to the fact that there is freedom of speech, and in spite of the limitations clause, Mr Green is entitled to speak. [Interjections.]

Mr L M GREEN: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I will be brief. I wish to take this opportunity once again...

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order Mr Green will you please take your seat. May I appeal to those members constantly making interjections to refrain from doing so now.

Mr L M GREEN: I wish to take this opportunity once again to thank you, the Deputy Chairperson, and all the party leaders for a friendly and consultative constitutional process.

Our party supports the principle of a constitutional State based on a supreme moral law written by God. We will lobby for the support of the nation to amend the sections in the Constitution which we find objectionable, and we hope that the 1999 elections will provide us with this opportunity.

We will subject ourselves to the highest law of the land, that is this Constitution, to the extent that it subjects itself to the law of God, which is our final authority. Our allegiance to God takes precedence over all other allegiances. It is the basic function of the law to restrain, and when the function of law is changed from the restraint of evil to the reformation of man and society, then the law itself begins to break down, because an impossible burden is placed upon it.

In conclusion, I wish to quote from the book of Psalms. I want to leave this Assembly with these words from Psalm 127:1:

Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Rev M A STOFILE: Mr Deputy Chairperson, hon Deputy President and hon members of both Houses of this Parliament . . . [Applause] . . . this is a very momentous occasion in the history of our country, and a very proud moment for every one of us who has participated in the process that has brought us to this very historic day.

Can I say at the very outset, on a personal note, that this is the proudest moment of my life, to be granted by my organisation, the ANC. the opportunity to speak on this occasion when the Parliament elected by all the people of South Africa is giving birth to a new constitution, a constitution which is the envy of the whole world. We have looked at constitutions from the rest of the world. We have learnt some things from them, and we have improved upon them, and today we have come out with a new constitution which, we believe. is a better constitution from which the rest of the world has a lot to learn.

Ours is a constitution which defines the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of this country, and safeguards those human rights. The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of our democracy. It creates respect for and protects human dignity, and makes everyone equal before the law. It makes sure that no one can again be discriminated against on the grounds of their race, gender, sex, sexual orientation or marital status, or on the basis of their ethnic or social origin, the colour of their skin, their age, their physical ability or disability, and that they shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion or conscience. The citizens of this country will no longer be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs, culture, language or birth, and indeed, no woman can be discriminated against if she falls pregnant. Instead of marginalising the minorities of our society, the Bill of Rights ensures that we celebrate and protect our cultural, historical and linguistic diversity. Where else are such fundamental and far-reaching rights enshrined than in such a constitution and Bill of Rights?

Our Constitution enshrines and guarantees the most comprehensive socio economic rights in the democratic world: the right to have access to adequate housing, the right to work opportunities and the right to have access to adequate food and water and to health care and social security. It enshrines rights to freedom of speech and access to information. Indeed, the Bill of Rights guarantees the protection not just of those now living, but also of many generations to come through the right to have the environment protected against pollution and degradation.

The new Constitution clearly defines the roles, powers and limitations of Parliament, and indeed of government at every level. Government must be open, it must be transparent and it must be co-operative, and our new Constitution creates a National Council of Provinces, which gives provincial legislatures a direct say in legislation affecting provincial legislation.

Ours is a constitution which guarantees fair and impartial justice, one which safeguards the impartiality of the police and brings the police and the defence services under civilian administration. It also recognises the role of traditional leaders, something which certain members seem not to have recognised this morning. It gives them a role within the justice system and the system of government.

This Constitution enshrines a brand-new democracy and provides powers and institutions to protect that democracy. The Public Protector, the Auditor-General, the Electoral Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Commission for Gender Equality and the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities- these are the champions of our democracy and the guarantors of our freedom. Our Constitution not only defines our rights as South Africans. Indeed, it defines South Africa itself.

I am very proud to be part of this Constitution. This is also a very proud occasion for every South African, because it is not only a constitution of members of the ANC, but one that takes into account the interests of all South Africans.

There will be many commentators on the Constitution, as well as judgments of the Constitutional Court, for many years to come. Already, this morning, we have heard commentaries on Justice Trengove's statement and about the meaning of the judgment of the Constitutional Court. What seems to have been overlooked is that lawyers never speak in imperative terms. And perhaps that is also a lesson we should learn: to be very careful in how we pronounce on constitutions when we make them.

It is not a perfect constitution, and no such document exists in the whole world. It is also not a Christian catechistical directive. It is a constitution to give guidance on how this country should be ruled. The churches and religious groupings should resist the temptation to ask parliament to do what they themselves have failed to do in our societies. For indeed, our successes and failures as religious communities can only be measured by the extent to which Parliaments are rendered obsolete in having to pronounce and legislate on the moral decay of a given society. Let us go back and do our homework and hope that by 1999, having transformed the moral fabric of South Africa and having convinced the populace of this country, the ACDP will indeed become a majority party. We look forward to that.

All the political parties who worked night and day for months must concede that this is directly a product of their own energies and an unyielding resolve to get this work properly done. We pay homage to them, especially for the services rendered in the past few weeks, against the tightest of deadlines, in debating, drafting and redrafting the Constitution. All parties are now seeing the fruits of their labours. We warned them, of course, that if they failed to meet the deadlines, they would have to sit here throughout the Christmas period, until the work was done, and we are proud that we have beaten the deadline by many months. The parties will now know that they have engraved a piece of history onto the heart of our country for which all of those who come after us will thank and remember us.

We in this Chamber today and the rest of the country thank Comrade Cyril. Mr Leon Wessels and everyone who tirelessly worked with them. We thank them without qualification, and we congratulate them on their fine achievement. I think hon members will agree that this a moment of pride for Parliament in general, which has the historic honour of approving this new Constitution. As parliamentarians, we can leave this Chamber this afternoon and say that democracy has truly come of age in South Africa. Most of all, it is an occasion in which all South Africans should take pride, because every single person in this country helped to bring us up to the point we have reached today.

Everyone who voted in that first democratic election on 27 April 1994, everyone who negotiated in the many months and years that led up to that election, indeed all patriots and democrats who looked into the abyss of war and further bloodshed and chose the path of peace, everyone who spoke out against injustice and the inhumanity of decades of apartheid and oppression, everyone who was sent to prison for their beliefs and their activities in fighting apartheid, everyone who was in exile garnering support for the cause of a free and democratic South Africa, everyone who worked underground to undermine and oppose a system of injustice, all the workers who refused to accept that they were powerless to fight for change, teachers who refused to teach the propaganda of apartheid to their children and ours, the children who refused to learn the language of apartheid and who resisted so bravely when the full force of the oppressive system was brought down upon them, all the women who cared for their children and their children's children when their families were torn apart, and all those brave men, women and children who laid down their lives for this day to be realised, who stood up said ,"This is not the way it will be" and died with defiance on their lips and the flame of freedom burning in their hearts, all of us today and those who have passed away, all played their part. Again, we can all take pride in this.

Although there are still a few months before the Constitution can be promulgated, we and the Government would like the Constitution to take effect as soon as possible. The National Council of Provinces should be in place early in the coming year and should already commence its work in 1997. In the light of this, we should expect the Constitution to be promulgated before Parliament convenes in 1997.

There is one final plaudit that we have. We would like to thank the Constitutional Court for its we wisdom, its patience and its care in deliberating on the Constitution. It had a difficult task to perform, but it performed that task with great me integrity and dignity. Those few matters which it referred back to our Constitutional Assembly for further consideration have helped us to craft a final constitution which provides even more clarity and even stronger safeguards for our new democracy. For this, we thank them all.

We look forward to that time, in just a few days, when the Constitutional Court will give its final blessing to this Constitution, and our President, in his own time, will take his seat in his presidential office, will take up his pen and, with a moment to reflect upon the centuries of our country's history, will write his signature of assent on the new Constitution for all of South Africa. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Ladies and gentlemen, I now ask Mr Ramaphosa to conclude this debate and explain the motion that we will be voting on.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Mr Chairperson, during the course of this debate, someone 'seemed to suggest that we should have a party once again to celebrate the adoption of the Constitutin.

HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear! [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITIONAL ASSEMBLY: We had a party when we adopted the Constitution on 8 May. We could have had a party today. We should consider having a party when the Constitutional Court certifies the Constitution.

I think we should definitely have a party when the President signs the Constitution and promulgates it as the law of the land. [Applause.] So there are a number of occasions on which we could have had a party. We just got a little worried that if the CA went ahead and organised all these parties, we would be exposing ourselves to criticism, not so much from the DP any more, but from the ANC as well, the NP, the PAC and others. So we have refrained, but we have said that when the President signs the Constitution, we will definitely have the mother of all celebrations. [Laughter.]

I would like to thank all parties and everyone who spoke in this debate, and particularly those who thanked us, the staff of the CA and everyone who participated in this process. I would particularly like to thank all the parties for the co-operative manner in which we negotiated this document we are about to adopt. It does indeed represent the collective views and will of our people.

This Constitution does represent a compromise, compromises that all parties have had to make. The compromises we made remind me of what one eminent negotiator once said in the middle of a long and involved argument on legal technicalities. This eminent negotiator said:

There comes a time when we all have to rise above our principles.

I believe that in many ways we, like all the parties here, like all the negotiators here, did rise above our principles. We also went beyond our abilities in the manner in which we negotiated. We simply excelled. We did shine and we were simply the best.

If the Constitutional Court does certify this Constitution-we obviously hope that it will- this will possibly be the last time that I will stand before hon members in this Chamber, as a member.

An HON MEMBER: Of the ANC? The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Not of the ANC, no. That is something which that hon member will never be able to take away from me. [Applause.]

I am tempted to say goodbye, but how does one say goodbye when the Constitutional Court can refer us back again? But also, how does one say goodbye to all the members here? It is indeed very difficult. There 'are a lot of things that I will personally miss. I will miss the warmth that I experienced here, notwithstanding the heckling, sometimes the antagonism that I seemed to perceive or that exists, but I will certainly miss the warmth that I found in this institution, the cameraderie that I also found here, and I will also miss the comradeship . . .

An HON MEMBER: But not Fourie!

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Yes, I will also miss Mr Fourie. [Laughter.] [Applause.] If for no other reason than that he comes from the north, I will miss him for that.

Therefore I am not going to say goodbye, because we might be referred back, but I hope that we are not referred back. I will also miss not only the leadership that I found in the party that I am a member of, but also the leadership that I found generally in this place.

I would like to say, from the depth of my hear thank you very much to hon members for allowing me and Mr Wessels to work with them in this whole process. Today we can say that we have done our job, we have achieved the goal that we all set out to achieve, and I think we have done our country and our people proud. Thank you ver much. [Applause.]

I wish to deal with just a few procedural matters The Standing Rules for the Constitutional Assembly do not make provision for a procedure for passing the new constitutional text when the text having been passed by the Constitutional Assembly, as we did on 8 May, is referred back to the Assembly by the Constitutional Court. There is no procedure for this.

However, Standing Rule 1 provides that the chairperson may give a ruling in respect of any eventuality for which the Rules do not provide. Accordingly, with the concurrence of the management committee, I have decided that the Assembly will be asked to vote on a resolution that the amended constitutional text be passed- In this way, the provisions of the interim Constitution regarding adoption of the text will be complied with.

Before I move the resolution appearing in my name on the Order Paper, I would like to put forward to hon members an amendment for adoption by the Constitutional Assembly of one of the provisions in the Constitution. This amendment is being put before hon members after discussion amongst the various parties represented here, and after they have given their consent. This arises from an oversight and revolves around clause 196(4)(b). Since there is subsequent uncertainty about the text, and following discussions amongst the various parties and agreements that were reached yesterday by all parties, clause 196(4)(b) should be changed in the text to read "personnel practices". However, clause 196 4(d) is currently incorrect as it stands in the text. It should read "personnel procedures" and not "personnel practices". I therefore move:

That- (1) clause 196(4)(d) of the new constitutional text, as amended (B 34B-96) be altered to read as follows:

To give directions aimed at ensuring that personnel procedures relating to recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer and dismissals comply with the values and principles set out in section 195; and (2) clause 197(4) of the same text be altered to read as follows:

Provincial governments are responsible for the recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer and dismissal of members of the public service in their administrations within a framework of uniform norms and standards applying to the public service.

[Interjections.] Those are the amendments which are being proposed, which have been carefully canvassed with various parties here, and which were to a large extent an oversight.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to deal with the amendment first. Can I take it that because this was a negotiated amendment, there are no objections? Are there any objections to this amendment? There seem to be none.

Agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Mr Chairperson, I move:

THAT WHEREAS the Constitutional Assembly, on 8 May 1996, passed the draft of the new constitutional text in terms of section 73(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 (Act No 200 of 1993): and

WHEREAS the Constitutional Court has. in terms of section 73A(1) of the Constitution, referred the draft of the new constitutional text back to the Constitutional Assembly; and

WHEREAS amendments to that draft of the new constitutional text are incorporated in the draft text (B 34B-96) before the Constitutional Assembly;

NOW THEREFORE the Constitutional Assembly resolves to pass the amended text.

Debate concluded.

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 the provinces would first be taken by senators alone. In the event of a division not being demanded, the votes of senators in favour of the Question would be recorded in the Minutes.

The result of the vote was as follows: AYES-71: Ackermann, C: Balie, A; Bhabha, M; Bloem, D V: Bogacwi, K A; Botha, Y R; Coetsee, H J: Cwele, S C; Fenyane, S L E; Fisher, S D: Foster, J A; Gamndana, T; Gillwald, C E; GrovC, S P: Hendrickse, H J A; ; Henry, M; Jooste, J A; Kgoali, J L; Khobe, 0 N; Koomhof, G W; Lamani, N E; Lebona, H J P; Lubidia, E N; Lubisi, S W; Madondo, M 1; Mahlangu, J L: Makgothi, H G; Makwela, 1; Malatsi, D M; Marais, A; Marais, G; Maserumule, F; Mashamba, T G G; Mashile, N L; Mayisela, E M; Metele, A T; Mkwayi, Z W; Mohamed, M; Mongwaketse, S J: Moorcroft, E K; Moosa, M W; Mothoagae, P K; Motshabi, C H; Mthembu, J M; Mudau, N W; Mukhuba, T T; Mutsila, 1; Naidoo, E N 1; Ndzanga, R A; Ngcuka, B T: Nobunga, B J; Nogumla, R Z; Rasmeni, S M; Redcliffe, C R; Saloojee, R A M; Selfe, J; Sifora, T V; Snyders, F E; Sosibo, J E; Sulliman, M A; Surty, M E; Swanepoel, L J; Taunyane, D P; Tinto, C F; Tolo, L J; Tonjeni, T L: Tshivhase, M P K; Tyobeka, V M; Van Breda, A; Van Niekerk, A E: Wiley, M G E.

NOES-0

ABSTENTIONS-2: Bruwer, A A B; 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 adoption of the Resolution.

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-370

NOES-1: Green, L M.

ABSTENTIONS-8: Bruwer, AAB; Chiole, J, Groenewald. P J: Louw, L; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A: Van der Walt, B J: Viljoen, C L.

After announcement of result of voting:

Mr J CHIOLE: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: I just wish to bring to your attention that the abstentions should be eight because the PF abstained. You did not mention whether we should press the black button if we wished to abstain. So we did not press any buttons. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! Thank you, Mr Chiole. We will record the statement which you have just made.

Question accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 73(2) of the Constitution.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY: Order! The Constitutional Assembly has now passed the new constitutional text, as amended. Before we close the proceedings of the day may I just draw attention to the fact that we have been honoured with visitors from abroad in our public gallery. We have also been honoured with the presence of the Deputy President of the Constitutional Court, Justice Mahomed, who participated from the public gallery. I trust that this will not be the last time I have the opportunity and privilege to address him. [Applause.]

Ladies and gentlemen, in the spirit of a pronouncement made by Mr Makwetu on a previous occasion, I want to say a few words in Afrikaans. He must therefore by no means deduce that I am distancing myself from my Afrikanership when I quote an American president later in my speech.

When I look at South African politicians, I see that they are not different from other politicians, a, namely, sometimes learned people. They are often criticised by the critics. I want to assure them that on their behalf I would like to get hold of these armchair critics in the early hours of the morning around the negotiating table and show them that being a politician is no mean feat.

I want to say to hon members, in the words of Theodore Roosevelt, to be steadfast. He said: It is not the critic who counts. It is not the man...

l concede that this is still old language. It is not politically correct language nor is it gender sensitive, but I will stick to his original words.

It is not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or whether the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marked by dust, sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again because there is no effort without error and shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows in the end of the triumphs of high achievement and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

I wish you well. [Applause.]

The meeting adjourned at 11:44

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT:

INTRODUCTION:

1. The Constitutional Assembly sitting of 17 September, 1996 directed the Constitutional Committee and two sub-committees to meet for purposes of preparing amendments to the constitutional text adopted by this Assembly on 8 May, 1996. The Constitutional Commit tee was instructed to table its report and submit an amended text for approval by the Constitutional Assembly in terms of Sec 73 (2) and 73A (2) of the interim Constitution on 11 October.1996.

REPORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE

2.The members of the sub-committees met jointly on 25 September before dividing into two groups under the chairpersonship of Ms Mavivi Myakayaka-Manzini and Mr Pravin Gordhan. Each sub-committee was directed to consider specific issues which in terms of the Constitutional Court judgment required further attention.

3. The sub-committees met on various occasions between 25 September and 3 October to consider amendments. On 7 October the Constitutional Committee met to receive a report from the sub-committees. The Constitutional Committee accepted the amendments proposed by the sub-committees. It also requested counsel to provide a legal opinion on various issues. Legal opinions were received on 9 October and were tabled at the Management Committee meeting on 10 October. As a result, the Constitutional Committee met on 10 October to consider further amendments.

4. The amendments to the text adopted by the Constitutional Assembly on 8 May fall into three categories. These are:

(a) editorial changes;

(b) technical changes requiring political approval; and

(c) changes required for compliance with the constitutional principles.

5. The amendments, agreed to by the Constitutional Committee on 10 October, are contained in the table below which lists those in categories (b) and (c) only, and indicates into which category each of the amendment falls.