National Council of Provinces Debate, 28 November 2006 (Unrevised Hansard)
Kgoshi M L MOKOENA
CIVIL UNION BILL
(CONSIDERATION OF BILL AND OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICES
THEREON)
The [aj1]MINISTER
OF HOME AFFAIRS: Chairperson of the NCOP, Chair of the Select Committee on
Social Services, hon Joyce Masilo, members of the Select Committee, hon
members, colleagues and friends, today is the culmination of an important
process in the consolidation of our democracy. Over the past few months, our
Parliament has led the public in engaging on one of the most emotive and
difficult issues since the dawn of democracy in our country. This work
culminates with a debate in this House on the Civil Union Bill, which was
passed in the National Assembly two weeks ago.
I must emphasise that the adoption of the Civil Union Bill is in itself not the
end of the public engagement process. The public debate has however brought
forth the issue of the extent to which society is prepared to adhere to the
Constitution as an embodiment of our democratic values.
The question that has been asked repeatedly over the past few months since the
introduction of the Bill has been: ``why?’’ Why is it that this government
feels compelled and determined to pass a piece of legislation that has caused
so much controversy, which has polarised our society? The answer to that
question stems from our belief in, and our struggle for equality for all people
in the true sense of the word.
Perhaps the most important foundation that laid the basis for our principle of
equality were the remarks of the late ANC President, Pixley ka Isaka Seme,
during his keynote address on 8 January 1912 when the movement of our people
was born. His premise for a united action against all forms of oppression was
that: “We are one people”. He went on to say:
We have called you therefore to this conference so that we can together devise
ways and means of forming our national union for the purpose of creating
national unity and defending our rights and privileges.
From the onset, the ANC has always had as its historic mission the unity of our
people and the defence of their rights. It is very important that the
seriousness that the ANC attaches to the ability of every human being to enjoy
rights and privileges should be understood within this historic context.
The ANC has always associated the issue of rights with the accomplishment and
the logical conclusion of the struggle for freedom. We have maintained that our
country can never be truly free if any segment of our society is still denied
their rights and liberties. Accordingly, in the drafting of our Freedom Charter
in 1955, we proclaimed:
Only a democratic state, based on the will of the people, can secure to all
their birthright without distinction of colour, race, sex or belief. That our
country will never be prosperous or free until all our people live in
brotherhood, enjoying equal rights and opportunities. We indeed further
proclaimed that all people shall have equal rights.
I’m raising these issues here because there are some who have argued that we
can afford to take the rights of same-sex couples lightly in our country. In
anyway, our commitment to these rights only came with the new democratic
constitution. Not only is this assertion wrong, but also it is a misinterpretation
of what our struggle for freedom was about. As you will note from the history
of our struggle, our people have always been impatient with the state-driven
discrimination as well as the treatment of any section of our society as
outcasts and second-class citizens undeserving of rights accorded to the rest
of the population.
It was with this in mind that government, in the context of its political and
legal obligations, started with the process of aligning old apartheid
legislation with the Constitution, including the Marriage Act of 1961.
The SA Law Reform Commission started a consultative process on the changes to
the legal regime governing marriages as early as 1996, two years after the
attainment of democracy in our country. However, during that process, the
definition of marriage in our current law faced a challenge within our courts.
The Constitutional Court declared that the definition of marriage under common
law and marriage formula as set out in section 30(1) of the Marriage Act were inconsistent
with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that they failed to provide the
means whereby same-sex couples could enjoy the status and benefits coupled with
responsibilities that marriage accorded to heterosexual couples. The court
ordered Parliament to correct these defects in the law by 1 December 2006,
failing which section 30(1) of the Marriage Act would be read as including the
words “or spouse” after the words “or husband”. This current Bill was drafted
in response to the court’s judgement in the Fourie case.
The court, while noting that “equal” does not mean “identical”, ruled that it
would be helpful to point to certain guiding constitutional principles. In
terms of the first guiding principle, the objectives of the new measure must be
to promote human dignity; the achievement of equality; the advancement of human
rights and freedoms.
The second guiding principle states that Parliament be sensitive to the need to
avoid a remedy that on the face of it we provide equal protection but would do
so in a manner that is calculated to reproduce new forms of marginalisation.
Whatever legislative remedy is chosen, it must be as generous and accepting
towards same-sex couples as it is to heterosexual couples, both in terms of
intangibles and tangibles.
It is our view that the Civil Union Bill, presently before this House, indeed
satisfies the order of the court. The objects of the Civil Union Bill are to
provide for the public solemnisation and registration of civil unions by way of
either a marriage or civil partnership and to provide for the legal
consequences thereof.
The Bill makes provision for opposite and same-sex couples of 18 years or older
to solemnise and register a voluntary union by way of either a marriage or
civil partnership. Care has been taken to ensure that a distinction is drawn
between the responsibilities of church and state as section 15(3) of the
Constitution calls for sensitivity in favour of acknowledging diversity in
matters of marriage. The Bill provides for same-sex couples to be married by
civil marriage officers and such religious marriage officers who consider such
marriages not to fall outside the tenets of their religion. In order to give
effect to the Constitutional Court ruling, same-sex couples must be allowed to
marry so that they can enjoy the status, obligations and entitlements enjoyed
at the moment by opposite sex couples. The Bill allows for both same-sex and
opposite sex couples to choose the option of having their union solemnised and
registered as a civil partnership by a state employed marriage officer.
I must restate government’s unequivocal commitment to ensuring that this
country has one legal framework governing marriage and that such legal
framework should be based on the principle of respect for human rights and
dignity for all.
The [aj2]harmonisation
of legislation and the building of a framework that governs family law are
paramount in our priorities for public policy review.
I am aware that this has been one of the most difficult pieces of legislation
to engage with, but I hope that all of us will understand the responsibilities
of each one of us seated here to provide leadership to our nation even if it
seems hard.
As I said during the debate in the National Assembly, we elected to fulfil the
directive of the Constitutional Court by introducing this Bill instead of
allowing a situation where the court amends the Marriage Act. In that way, we
have ensured the responsibility to pass and amend legislation.
In this regard, I must thank hon Members of Parliament for their commitment to
dealing with this Bill within the timeframe provided by the Constitutional
Court. I must particularly thank members of this House, and in particular, the
select committee, for their preparedness to stay behind to deal with this Bill
despite this period being a constituency period.
I want to thank you, Chairperson. In spite of all the difficulties we came
across along the way, all of us were interacting during this time. It was a
very difficult period but, nonetheless, we have all come to a point where we
can pass this difficulty and overcome this difficult process. Ke a leboga.
[Applause.]
Ms J M MASILO
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
Setswana:
Ms [aj3]J M MASILO: Ke a leboga Modulasetulo
yo o tlotlegang.
English:
Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon Members of Parliament, senior officials of
the government, ladies and gentlemen, the National Council of Province’s Select
Committee on Social Services rises to support the passing and enacting of the
Civil Union Bill which was presented by the Department of Home Affairs to the
committee on 21 November 2006.
Amidst a difficult process, I still stand here with immense pride that we as
members of the People’s Parliament continue to fulfil the mandate given to us
by our people to take Parliament to the people by decisively formulating
legislation that is transformative for a better life for all the people of
South Africa.
When the ANC government manifests for a better life for all, it means as such a
better life for all South Africans, irrespective of race, sex, ethnicity,
religion, disability, age and sexual orientation. This manifestation by the
ANC-led government is a credible, consistent endorsement of section 9 (3) of
the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996. The provision
officially made South Africa the first African country to enshrine gay and
lesbian rights in its Constitution. This protects gays and lesbians against all
forms of unfair discrimination.
The judgment handed down by Constitutional Court in 2005 obligated Parliament
to fix the law that limits marriage to a pact between man and woman should have
come with neither surprise nor furore. In the words of the Constitutional
Court, South Africa as a nation needs to continue affirming “the character of
our society as one founded and based on tolerance and mutual respect.”
Also, we are all witnesses in this House that this country was able to premise
its healing phase by utilising our Constitution as the supreme law to transform
a society that was brutalised by colonialism and a racist apartheid regime.
Yet we as South Africans have been consistently reminded and rightly
reprimanded by the most Reverend Archbishop Tutu that:
Despite our Constitution, we still treat homosexuals as pariahs and push them
outside our communities. We make them - homosexuals - doubt that they too are
children of God - and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy.
Indeed, of the 128 submissions received by the National Council of Provinces’
Select Committee on Social Services, the majority of those groups who submitted
comprehensively rejected the Civil Union Bill. Their basis for rejection was
that marriage is an institution created by God, a union between a man and woman
only. Some rejected that legislation as being unAfrican, as the Bill allegedly
derogates African traditions and cultures.
This ANC-led government will always give true meaning to the concept of a
People’s Parliament, and as such, submissions from all angles, whether in
favour or against the Bill, have been given their due consideration, respect
and honour. Notwithstanding this, it is also the duty of the ANC-led government
to give true meaning to the fundamental principle of our Constitution.
Significantly, Parliament’s theme for this year 2006 is, “All shall have equal
rights before the law.”
Anything contrary to this fundamental principle is inhuman, as we have been
reminded by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, our own reverend Nobel Peace Prize winner
who is a Christian and an African. The Archbishop has always continued to
publicly comment and to unapologetically acknowledge that homophobia or hating
and discriminating against homosexuals is a crime against humanity and every
bit unjust and evil as apartheid.
We are empowered by this Civil Union Bill to enact a civil union between two
consenting adults regardless whether they are from a traditional, customary,
Khosi, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc background.
As we all know, the current Marriage Act of 1961 does not even recognise
marriages of other religions, and this is a blindly Christian bias. The Civil
Union Bill thus facilitates for an enhanced constitutional right for all
religious marriages. For instance, this Bill empowers the Minister of Home
Affairs to designate a minister of any religion holding a responsible position
in or her respective religious institution to become a religious marriage
officer.
This is in line with the Constitutional Court judgment. As per the
Constitutional Court, our Constitution recognises “the multitude of the family
formation in South Africa and inappropriateness of entrenching any particular
form as the only socially and legal acceptable one”.
The Constitutional Court judgment sent a clear message that all South African
adults have the right to choose their families and relationships while enjoying
equal protection by the law.
The above judgment then means that we as South Africans may no longer define or
understand marriage solely from the premise of preserving accumulated beliefs,
customs and religion within a group.
The Civil Union Bill wisely shifts our paradigm to make us also understand that
marriage is an expression of a dignified and solemn covenant between any two
consenting adults irrespective of race, religious tradition or sexual
orientation. This means then that gays and lesbians will no longer bear the
state of not having inherent dignity and to always be regarded as not worthy of
human respect.
This Bill enables all capable consenting adults to express and share love and
its manifold forms, meaning that gays and lesbians are also capable of
constituting a family, including affection. They love the soul.
This ANC-led government has and will also be lucid, transparent and consistent
in embracing the Constitution of South Africa in its entirety. The People’s
Parliament will continue to respect the ruling of all courts, institutions of
law. We will fulfil its mandate of making transformative legislation.
We as South Africans are invited by our progressive Constitution to work in
partnership with government to make visible and accessible the benefits
enshrined in the Constitution and a Civil Union Bill for a better life for all
citizens of this country.
In so doing, we will also be honouring in earnest the recent convention this
Parliament recently approved of protecting and promoting the diversity of
cultural expressions so that South Africa continues to be a multicultural
society that vigorously values and propagates diversity, co-existence and
tolerance.
In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the hon members
of the Select Committee on Social Services for the sterling work done in their
respective national constituencies in processing this Bill successfully. A word
of appreciation also goes to our hon Minster of Home Affairs and her officials
for their dedicated support to our select committee.
Above all, we say a big thank you to those patriotic citizens who made
submissions. They have indeed added value to our democratic process. I thank
you. [Applause.]
Mr [aj4]O M
THETJENG
Ms J M MASILO
Mr [aj5]O M
THETJENG: Chairperson, it is a pleasure today for me to stand in this House to
debate the Civil Union Bill that intends to unionise same-gender relationships.
I have noted the submissions provided to the portfolio committee and of the
select committee.
It is clear that the majority of South Africans are against this Bill. I have
gone through the unrevised Hansard of 14 November 2006 of the National
Assembly. The majority of people present on the day voted in favour of the
Bill. The DA has given its members a free vote, that is, each member will vote
according to his conscience and I will exercise that right as availed to me.
I am going to vote against this Bill based on my Christian convictions which I
am not ready to compromise. My colleagues in the DA in this House will vote
according to their conscience and will do one of the following: vote in favour,
vote against or abstain depending on their choices. This is democracy at its
best, as individual members are not coerced into a particular position.
The ANC has instructed its members to vote in favour of the Bill without fail,
and they have complied with the instructions. [Interjections.] Others, who in
all probability, would have voted against the Bill, were sent for activities
outside Parliament so that they are absent during the debate and not there for
the voting because they would embarrass the ANC.
Where is Reverend Moatshe today? Where is democracy? Has it been thrown out of
the window? I hope and believe that this won’t be repeated in this House
today.
The [aj6]CHIEF
WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I want to ask a question if the member is
promoting that members should vote against the Constitutional Court’s ruling?
The [aj7]CHAIRPERSON
OF THE NCOP: Hon member, are you willing to take a question?
Mr [aj8]O M
THETJENG: No, I am not.
The [aj9]CHAIRPERSON
OF THE NCOP: He is not willing to take a question. Continue.
Mr [aj10]O
M THETJENG: Some gay and lesbian groups are not in favour of this Bill because
it does not address the aspect of marriage, as they would have wanted it. This
means it still falls short of their expectations.
Many more South Africans do not believe that this is the right thing to do and
I concur with them. I am also quite aware that the Constitution of this country
does not only protect the majority of the people, but also minority groups.
There is also a Bill of Rights that protects and guarantees the basic rights to
all South Africans irrespective of race, gender, creed and sexual orientation,
etc.
But for me personally there is a bigger Constitution written under the
inspiration under the power of the Holy Ghost called the Bible. For my fellow
Christians, like myself, it has all answers to life’s challenges both good and
bad. It also provides you with information on how you need to go about solving
negative or bad challenges as well as providing ways to hold onto good morals.
Somebody asked a question during the public hearings and referred to the issue
of morals according to whose standards? The answer is: God’s standards as laid
out in his Holy Book. He created male and female for procreation and Christians
believe that the word “female” means “a male able to carry a foetus”. There is
nothing called an alternative lifestyle other than the one determined by God.
Any other lifestyle is an abomination before the eyes of God.
Organisations from churches, religious groupings, traditional and ordinary
people came in numbers to present their arguments in the public hearings. More
than 95% - and I agree with the chairperson of the committee that it could be
99,9% - have literally come to present their submissions and are not in favour
of this particular Bill. I also agree with the Minister to say that this has
created polarisation in our society. Some have called for a referendum, but I
don’t think this is the right way to go about it.
Were these public hearings conducted for the sake of complying with procedures
and not meant to honestly consider submissions from the public? The answer is:
yes. Members of the ANC in the committee displayed an attitude of you may say
whatever you like but we are ready to effect any changes.
Were they complying with instructions from their senior office bearers? The
answer is: yes. Why did this committee call for public hearings when inputs
were not valued and considered? Is this how the ANC undermines the public that
honestly responds when required to do so by Parliament that they have voted in?
The portfolio committee went thorough our nine provinces to conduct public
hearings. What happened to the inputs submitted during the public hearings?
Take a guess. Why then do we waste time and money by conducting public hearings
when the inputs are ignored?
Some called for a Constitutional amendment since the Constitution has been
amended about 13 times. They were told ... [Interjections.]
Mr B J TOLO: Will the member take a question?
The [aj11]CHAIRPERSON
OF THE NCOP: Are you prepared to take a question?
Mr [aj12]O
M THETJENG: No.
The [aj13]CHAIRPERSON
OF THE NCOP: He is not prepared. Continue, hon member.
Mr [aj14]O
M THETJENG: They were told in no uncertain terms that the ANC cannot and will
never amend the Constitution. The DA is not going to take a particular position
as a party as reflected above. A free vote is accorded to them and they are
entitled to vote as they see fit.
Thank you, and I believe South Africans will take note of what happened in this
particular House and I say: South Africans take note that those people that you
put in power are not considering your inputs.
Mrs [aj15]J
N VILAKAZI
Mr [aj16]O
M THETJENG
Mrs [aj17]J
N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, it is obvious and it
must be accepted that the majority of larger sections of our community are
totally opposed to this Bill, my party as well.
The ANC is passing this Bill against odds using its majority status and
disregarding the overwhelming number of submissions made by people from various
sectors of society, who were vehemently opposing this Bill. It is shameful!
The IFP has always very strongly espoused family values and is ultimately
guided by deep-seated religious and moral values. Same-sex unions ...
[Interjections.]
Mr B J TOLO: Is the hon member prepared to take a question?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon member, are you going to take a question?
Mrs [aj18]J
N VILAKAZI: No, I am not taking any question. [Laughter.] I am in the podium
now and I did not interfere with you. Please sit down.
Mr B J TOLO: Chairperson is the hon member afraid?
Mrs [aj19]J
N VILAKAZI: I am not taking any question here. I could do that outside.
Mr B J TOLO: Are you afraid?
Mrs [aj20]J
N VILAKAZI: I will do that outside.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP[jh21]:
Continue, hon member.
Mrs [aj22]J
N VILAKAZI: Thank you very much, Chairperson, for coming to my rescue. The IFP
has always very strongly espoused family values and it is ultimately guided by
deep-seated religious and moral values. Same-sex unions are inconsistent with
culture and traditional family values.
This Bill will obviously lead to the disintegration of family life and will
encourage abnormal sexual behaviour, which corrupts society and that is besides
the corruption that we are experiencing now. We still expect more corruption to
come.
Our country is faced with innumerable social ills, tangibly tearing up the
moral fabric of society and this Bill will further bring more havoc and
degeneration in society. [Laughter.]
Now, I am pleading: All God-fearing people must indeed say this: Cry the
beloved, South Africa. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs A N D QIKANI
Mrs J VILAKAZI
Mrs [aj23]A
N D QIKANI: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the main source of
disagreement regarding the Bill relates to the equality clause in the Bill of
Rights, specifically clause 9(3) which states that we may not unfairly
discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds,
including age, race, disability, religion, belief, culture or birth.
What we have seen during the public participation process is that a wide
variety of institutions and organisations representing various sectors of
society have shown an intense interest in this Bill and the issue of homosexual
marriage. This included religious and cultural groups and many different legal
opinions were raised. Despite these varying opinions, it was clear that the
vast majority of religious representatives before the committee, representing
the majority of religions in the country, were opposed to the Bill.
The Christian representatives that appeared before the committee also claim
that the Bible explicitly prohibits homosexual behaviour. The specific
references are around Leviticus 18: verse 22 and 20, verse 13 which explains
thus that this act and orientation is detestable before God. Also in
Corinthians: 6 verse 10 and Timothy: 1 verse 10, and Romans: 1 verse 26 and 27,
it is stated that the act and orientation is sodomic, unnaturally shameful and
against the doctrine of nature. This doctrine of nature is captured in Genesis
1: verse 28 where it says, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue
it.”
Marriage is a union that achieves oneness between a man and a woman. In
Christian theology this means a man without a woman is incomplete just as a
woman without a man is incomplete. This is then why the Bible states that a man
plus a woman is equal to one instead of two because they are halves. That
becomes a single whole through the act of marriage, and in that marriage
ordained by God ... [Interjections.]
Mr J B TOLO: Is the member willing to take a question?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Are you wiling to take a question, hon member?
Mrs [aj24]A
N D QIKANI: No, Chairperson.
IsiXhosa:
Hayi, Bawo uTola Hlala phantsi. [Kwahlekwa.]
English:
They can reproduce, fulfil the blessing of and command of God as expressed in
Genesis 1: verse 28. Marriage and marital sex from the perspective of Christian
god is for procreation, to produce offspring. This means now that you are
dependant on each other for everything. From this perspective for Christianity,
homosexual marriages will be non-reproductive, incomplete and constantly
dependant on other institutions for procreation.
IsiXhosa[aj25]:
Mhlalingaphambili, xa ndigqibezela mandithi, andihlali endlwini yamagqirha wona
athi: Vumani nonke. Andivumi. [Kwahlekwa.]
Mr N D HENDRICKS
Ms A N D QIKANI
Mr [aj26]N D HENDRICKS Hon
Chairperson, hon members, I hope you will give us a chance to speak. Thank you.
The nation awaits your verdict today on what must be the most controversial of
all the Bills ever to reach Parliament since the advent of our democracy.
The Constitution of the RSA provides that everyone is equal before the law and
has a right to equal protection and benefit of the law. It is speaking about
equality, but what we are talking about here is right and wrong, not equality.
The fact is that we are about to pass a Bill which legalises sodomy, a
disastrous message to the youth. It’s about what message we are sending to the
youth.
I have not come here today to judge anybody in their personal lifestyles. For
that they, like myself, will have to give an account before the almighty God
but, Chairperson, this Bill will seriously affect the very fabric of our
society and the family unit as we know it. Children will suffer psychological
setbacks and, in short, we are failing the nation. Already with people in those
kinds of units, children are already showing those kinds of signs.
We have called for public input yet when men and women of God of various
religious faiths asked us to consider this Bill, we say it is not possible because
of the Constitution. Why did we bother to go to the public? Were we just going
through motions?
The Constitution is not written in stone and in fact has been amended several
times. It was written by fallible men and women, and it has to be tested and it
was said so at the time. It could never be perfect.
Some people argue that because we are a secular state, the word of God has no
place in our argument. The fact is the scripture says, “God rules in the
affairs of men” ... [Interjections.]
Mr [aj27]M
A SULLIMAN: Is the member prepared to take a question?
Mr [aj28]N
D HENDRICKS: Not at all, sir. [Interjections.]
The fact is - and I will repeat this in case the hon member has not heard -
this. The fact is that God says in his word that he rules in the affairs of men
and, worse, through the passage of time God has judged several nations for
disobedience. We mustn’t think that as nation we can do what we want to do.
I make no excuse for quoting Scripture and our sister there has quoted a number
of Scriptures which I wanted to quote to you because even the last couple of
speeches I heard from our President, he has been quoting Scripture ad nauseam,
so I make no excuse, as my value system is based on the word of God, right.
In short, the marriage of two people of the same sex is unnatural, and makes a
mockery of the sanctity of marriage and sends a wrong message to already
confused and traumatised youth that wrong can also be right. [Interjections.]
We are totally against this Bill in the UIF. Thank you.
Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE
Mr N D HENDRICKS
IsiZulu:
Ms [aj29]N
M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Sihlalo, ngibingelela uNgqongqoshe kazwelonke, ngibingelele
abasebenzi boMnyango, ngibingelele nabahlonishwa. Ngaphambi kokuba ngethule
inkulumo, ngithanda ukubhekisa lokhu engizokusho kwilingu elihloniphekile
uThetjeng. Ilungu elihloniphekile uThetjeng lalingekho nhlobo ngenkathi
silalele imibono yemiphakathi. Weza imizuzu enga-30 efuna ukuzokhombisa
kwabezindaba ukuthi i-DA yabe ikhona. [Ubuwelewele.]
English:
What I want to say to you is that it doesn’t mean we mustn’t guide the majority
of organisations that oppose this Bill. As the ANC, we are there to guide the
public, not to mislead them. [Interjections.] I want to say to hon QIKANI and
hon Hendricks: We are not in church here. [Interjections.] We know the
Scriptures. We do attend our churches. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, order! [Interjections.] Order! Order!
Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Lastly, I want to say to them ... [Interjections.]
Chairperson, can you protect me.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Mr Krumbock! Mr Krumbock, it is an
unbecoming behaviour in the House to be pointing your finger like that to a
member. Please desist from doing that.
IsiZulu: [aj30]
Ngizokuthola ngaphandle. Ngizokuthola ngaphandle. [Uhleko.]
English: [aj31]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Let’s not say that. Continue, hon member.
Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: I want to say to them that, in our different parties
as we are here, we do have such people amongst us and they are members. So they
need our support. Why don’t we support them? Are we after their votes only and
don’t we support them? [Interjections.] Chairperson, I am now beginning my
speech.
IsiZulu: [aj32]
Mangikusho ukuthi namhlanje usuku olukhulu, ngoba ngani kuwusuku lokuvuna
ezinye zezithelo zenkululeko esayilwela kuleli lakithi. Ngemuva kokuthola
inkululeko ngonyaka ka-1994, sakubeka kwacaca singuKhongolose ukuthi
ubandlululo kanye noqhekeko phakathi kwesizwe saseNingizimu Afrika sizokulwa nakho.
Inhloso yalo mthetho ukubhekela ukuthi iNingizimu Afrika iyizwe elibumbene,
inamalungelo omuntu wonke - akukhathalekile noma owaliphi ibala, nokuthi
uyinhloboni yobulili noma inhloboni yenkolo. Sazibophezela-ke thina
siwuKhongolose ukuthi sizoluqeda lonke ubandlululo. Lokhu kwashicilelwa
kuSomqulu Wenkululeko ngonyaka we-1955 eKliptown.
Ubandlululo lwenza ukuthi sinyezane, singabi nenhlonipho komunye umuntu,
sehlise isithunzi somunye umuntu. Mangisho ngithi lo Mthethosivivinywa ubuyisa
isithunzi somuntu ngokungangabazi. Ubuye futhi unikeze amalungelo alinganayo,
phecelezi “all shall have equal rights”.
Mangisho ukuthi uma siqala le ndima ngokubuyisana kuleli. Ngemuva kwe-1994,
owayenguMongameli uNelson Rolihlahla Mandela waphawula kanje:
The time for the healing of wounds of the past has come. The moment to bridge
the chasms that divide us has come. The time to build is upon us.
Ake ngiphawule ngezinye zezihloko kulo Mthethosivivinywa. Abashadisi
ezinkantolo bazogunyazwa ngokuphelele ukushadisa ongqingili uma bekudinga. Lo
mthetho uzogunyaza abafundisi banoma ngabe iliphi isonto noma inkonzo ukuthi
bafake isicelo sokugunyazwa ukushadisa ongqingili. Lo mthetho awusoze
uphoqelele abafundisi uma bengenaso isifiso salokho. Maqondana nohlu
lokubhaliswa kwemishado, bobabili ongqingili kuzodingeka babhale phansi basho
ukuthi banesifiso sokushada, basayine ifomu elithize. Kuzofuneka ofakazi
ababili. Ngemuva kokushada bazonikezwa isitifiketi somshado noma sokuthi
bahlalisane bobabili.
Umshadisi ngamunye uphoqelekile ukugcina uhla lwabashadile. Lolu hla
luzothunyelwa emahhovisi kahulumeni aqondene nokubhaliswa kwabantu kuleyo
ndawo. Ngithanda ukusho ukuthi uma kunabashadisi mbumbulu abangabhaliswe noma
abangagunyaziwe ngaphansi kwalo mthetho, bayojeziswa yinkantolo yamacala.
Ngokunjalo umshadisi owemukela imali ngokungemthetho, uyojeziswa futhi
inkantolo yamacala.
Ikomidi Lezasekhaya liwucubungule kabanzi lo mthethosivivinywa. Ngesonto
elidlule silalele uMnyango Wezasekhaya ubeka ngabanzi ngalo mthetho, sabuye salalela
izinhlangano ezihlukahlukene. Mangisho ukuthi izinhlangano, ikakhulukazi
ezamakholwa, ziyaphikisana nalo mthetho. Zitomula izahluko ezithile
eBhayibhelini, njengoMnu Hendrickse nelungu uQikani. Zibuye futhi zikhulume
ngamalungelo abantwana. Konke lokhu sibone kungahlangani nhlobo nalo mthetho,
kungamanzi no-oyela.
Okumangazayo ukuthi lezi zinhlangano zihlulela abantu abadalwe uMvelinqangi,
okunguyena ozobehlulela ngomhla wokuphela. Ngakho-ke mabangabahluleli abanye
abantu.
Kunezinhlangano eziseka lo mthetho. Enye yezinhlangano eziseka lo mthetho
iphawule kanje, “I am in love with the soul, not the gender.” Ngamanye amazwi
ngithandana nomphefumulo qobo lwawo, angithandani nobulili.
Okumangazayo ukuthi ongqingili babekhona mandulo, into nje kwakuyinto
eyimfihlo. Bebengaphumeli obala. Okuhle-ke kulesi sikhathi samanje ukuthi
ongqingili baphumela obala, bafuna amalungelo abo njengawo wonke umuntu kuleli.
Masingabi nobandlululo.
Ngithanda ukusho futhi ukuthi ongqingili bazozikhulumela uma befisa ukushada
kumbe bahlalisane. Abaphoqiwe ngaphansi kwalo mthetho, kanti futhi ngokunjalo
nabafundisi abaphoqiwe ukushadisa ongqingqili. Masingakhohlwa ukuthi laba bantu
badalwe uNkulunkulu njengami nawe. Ngakho-ke masibamukele.
English: [aj33]
If we as lawmakers treat certain people less favourably than others, based on
certain characteristics or other considerations, concern will arise that we are
directing our policy and legislative decisions on, and acting out of, sheer
prejudice and stereotypical assumptions.
In conclusion, I would like to say, indeed, we need to fight and resist all
forms of discrimination and prejudice, including homophobia. We should not
allow discrimination to marginalise a certain group of our society. As a
vanguard of all the people, we, the ANC, cannot allow suppression and
discrimination against homosexuals to persist in our society.
When we advance and deepen our vision of a better life for all the people, we
must understand that homosexuals are also people, bearing in mind that there
are men and women of homosexual and lesbian orientation who joined the ranks of
the democratic forces in the struggle for liberation. I thank you, Chairperson.
[Applause.]
Dr F J VAN HEERDEN
Ms N M MADLALA_MAGUBANE
Afrikaans: [aj34]
Dr [aj35]
F J VAN HEERDEN: Voorsitter, die wetsontwerp se voorsiening om die gemene reg
sodanig te wysig dat partye van dieselfde geslag nou ’n wettige huwelik kan
sluit, is sekerlik een van die mees omstrede stukke wetgewing wat sedert 1994
deur hierdie Parlement geloods is. Die Minister het tereg gesê, “it was a
difficult process.”
Ek kan dit
absoluut glo, want die wetsontwerp word deur die meeste kerke en gelowe
geopponeer. Die beginsel word deur die meeste lande verwerp. En tog is Suid-Afrika
nou maar een van sowat vyf lande – ek meen twee van die ander is Kanada en
Nederland – wat sodanige verbintenisse erken. Die VF Plus beskou dit nie as ’n
prestasie nie.
Wat betref die vermoënsregtelike voordele van so ’n verbintenis, daarvoor kan
voorsiening gemaak word. Vermoënsregtelike voordele ten opsigte van sodanige
verbintenisse is ’n totale ander saak, maar ’n wettige huwelik soos dié tussen
man en vrou soos ons dit verstaan, is hoegenaamd nie vir die party aanvaarbaar
nie, en dus sal die party daarteen stem.
Wat ook vreemd is, is die Robinson-saak, wat in Februarie 2005 gedien het.
Hierdie saak het gegaan oor persone wat saam gewoon het en toe is daar
uiteindelik ná die oorlye van een persoon ’n eis ingestel vir onderhoud teen
die boedel van die ander persoon, die man. Daar is in ’n minderheidsuitspraak
die volgende gesê:
Although 2,3 million people have described themselves as living together
like married partners although they are not married, there’s no comprehensive
legislation to deal with the consequences of such cohabitation.
Die VF Plus is ook teen sodanige saamleefverhoudings gekant, maar wanneer dit
gaan oor die vermoënsregtelike voordele is dit ’n totaal ander storie, en dan
moet daarna gekyk word. Dié ding is twee jaar gelede gedoen en die
Regskommissie het opdrag gekry om te kyk na wat gedoen kan word ten opsigte van
wetswysiging om hieraan gestalte te gee by wyse van wetgewing. Twee jaar is verby en niks
het nog gebeur nie.
’n Baie meer verdienstelike saak is hierdie een, die Robinson-saak, maar dit
word op ys geplaas terwyl hierdie wetsontwerp gestoomroller word. Die VF Plus
sal dit nie steun nie en daarteen stem. Dankie, Voorsitter.
Mr J O TLHAGALE
Dr F J VAN HEERDEN
Mr [aj36]J
O TLHAGALE: Hon Chair, the hon Minister, and the hon House. The naming of this
piece of legislation as the Civil Union Bill is crafted in a manner that makes
it less abhorrent than when it is referred to as the same-sex Bill, or a
marriage of a female to another female, or a male to another male. [Laughter.]
According to black African culture, the marriage of a male to another male, or
a female to another to female, is taboo. [Laughter.] [Applause.] It is simply
not done least we infuriate the gods.
On a personal note, I don’t normally agree with the politics of President
Robert Mugabe, but I like his stance on this foreign practise of same-sex
marriages. It boggles one’s mind to think of how exactly they are doing it.
[Laughter.] Before my time allocation expires, let me state that my party, the
UCDP is opposed to this Bill on religious and cultural reasons.
Can you imagine a situation where your son who works in Gauteng come home
during the Christmas recess, accompanied by somebody that you perceive as a
male friend, ... [Laughter.] ... but to your surprise and shock, your son
introduces this companion as your daughter-in–law, who have been married
according to this Bill. [Applause]
*** Language spoken has changed to Setswana [aj37]***
... makoti wa monna [A male daughter-in-law]. [Interjections.]
*** Language spoken has changed to English [aj38]***
You have been expecting that one day at an opportune and appropriate time you
would get a daughter-in-law and not an indescribable somebody who is going to
be a square peg in a round hole when you conduct family rituals and
propitiation ceremonies to the gods. I thank you, Chairperson.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Mr J O THLAGALE
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY (Mr [aj39]T
S SETONA): Chairperson, hon Minister, I am not sure where I am going to start
... [Laughter.] ... because I have my speech here. But before I go into my
speech I think I have to make some few observations in terms of the whole
process of public engagement, which culminated in the debate in this august
House on this important piece of legislation.
My observation is that firstly, as the ANC we cannot be apologetic to answer a
question as to why we are the first country in Africa to pass this legislation.
We are the first country because we are the first, the premier and the oldest
liberation movement in Africa, with supremacy of ideas for a better future for
humanity, so that is our historic task. It has been bestowed upon us by
history. Nobody, locally, including on the continent of Africa, has contested
that particular historical reality. So we are on course.
Secondly, one is a little bit disappointed with the engagement on this
particular issue. I am sure that you will all agree with me that the ANC is not
an arrogant organisation. We sincerely thought that we would get some little
wisdom from the manner in which our opponents from the opposition will engage
on us on this debate with all sincerity.
The hon Minister has said that the conclusion of this Bill is not an end on the
public engagement between government and civil society broadly. We really
thought that some of the views that we will come across here would really put
us closer to be thinking in the same wave land as other members of the opposition
are thinking.
At worst, what we witness, for instance, the DA that calls itself an
indispensable force of the opposition in South African political landscape have
taken a cowardly position that no self respecting opposition, in any country,
can take. For failing to take a public position on a public policy issue! It
has never happened anywhere. [Interjections[aj40].]
I am not sure what message is, in that particular gesture, the DA sending to
the aspirant electorates who may likely join the DA. [Interjections.]
One must say that we have heard nothing new in this House, particularly by Mr
Thetjeng because he made it clear and he is exposing his views. Mr Thetjeng
together with hon Mr Qikani, and Mrs Vilakazi – she is old and I would reserve
my words for her. [Laughter.]
I am very honest that some of us wanted to hear something, but they wanted to
turn this august House – a self-respecting Parliament – into a kindergarten
Biblical lecture.
In doing that, they are projecting themselves as being more of a Christian than
the millions and millions of Christians who have voted for the ANC and
particularly for Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which entrenches equality
within our society. Chapter 2 of the Constitution forms the basis on which
today we are discussing this particular Civil Union Bill. I am saying that we
have not learnt anything. Of course, one must also admit that – not Mrs
Vilakazi – but the IFP have also not been helpful because they are basically
living in the past.
I must say something here, I don’t want to be petty and say that Mr Thetjeng
was not in the committee ... [Interjections[aj41].]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP[tz42]:
Order!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY (Mr T S SETONA)[tz43]:
He does not want to tell this august House that way in the ANC, as a leader and
the agent of change for transformation in this country, we understand public
participation not as a something similar to a robot. A robot is something with
somebody who programmes it by using buttons, green, red, and yellow.
We see ourselves as leaders. We have listened to the views of our people and we
have engaged our people as a leadership. And, I thought that the hon Tlhagale
with his sincerity would save this thing. Errol Naidoo, who was representing
the Christian community in our public hearings and who was supported – I am
saying this thing at a public platform – by all other religious leaders who
were seated there, after persuasion by members of the ANC in that committee
said, and I quote:
This Bill is a better evil than when the Marriage Act would have been amended
to insert those new insertions, husband and a wife.
He further said:
They would appreciate further public consultation as and when government
engages in the whole process of overhauling the Marriage Act.
So, that is appreciation. What you read into it and what you want to mislead
the House and the public with is what he has read and not by following the
public debate to the end. The conclusion of the debate in the public hearing,
of which I was a part, is that there was an agreement between ourselves and the
religious community that we needed to engage further on this issue - I think I
have outlined a process in that regard.
So, no party should be scared in this House, believing that all religious
communities are against this Bill. It is not true. It is a very complex emotive
Bill that we must engage with the sensitivities that it warrants. I think, in
dealing with this challenge the ANC is on course.
Having made those observations, Chairperson, I want to move on by saying that
section 9 of the Constitution provides that everyone is equal before the law and
has equal protection and benefits of the law. In section 9(3) the Constitution
further spells out forms of discriminations and prejudices that may not be
allowed, and I quote:
The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on
one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status,
etc.
One member has just said that these gays and lesbians are with us here, and
they are in all the political parties. I can challenge any priest who can claim
that there are no gays and lesbians in church. I can challenge any religious
leader who says that gays and lesbians are somewhere else in society, somewhere
detached. So, I think our task as the ANC is indeed to educate our public and
that education must start here and nowhere else.
I am happy, hon Thetjeng, that after we have highlighted the hypocrisy of the
DA in the committee it has made a very principled public statement that it does
not agree with the referendum, but if we can reveal the records of the
committee meeting that he wanted to grand stand there and say the people have
spoken lets go for a referendum.
We asked him whether the DA would adopt a vote based on their conscience if we
call for a referendum on the property clause? We asked him whether the DA would
adopt a conscientious stance if we call for a referendum on the landownership
in this country?
Hon members, leadership as far as the ANC is concerned is the appreciation of
complexities of our transition, appreciation of difficulties we don’t have to
take everything as light and easy.
We need to appreciate those things we also want to learn from the masses of our
people whilst we educate them in terms of this Constitution. It is the basis on
which we are moving forward. However those members have gone to an extent of
misleading our people in a public meeting.
Could members give us an example in the recorded history of this Parliament
where the Bill of Rights has ever been amended? But, deliberately and educated
as they are, they want to influence the masses for cheap political poaching.
They say: No, but you have amended the Constitution many times, so why don’t
you amend the Constitution so that you would not be able to pass this
particular legislation? And we are saying that is opportunism and the ANC are
not intimidated by those gestures.
I told Mrs Vilakazi that we are going to continue because nobody else but the
ANC is going to go right to Ulundi to educate our people about the values of
our Constitution. Our people are going to accept and understand that the
freedom of the gays and lesbians is not taking away their own freedom and their
own privacy and rights.
I must repeat in this august House that we will go everywhere, even to those
traditional communities and the former white communities to preach that message
as the ANC. So, there is no crisis at all about this piece of legislation.
We are confident that we are on track and there is nobody else in this country
that can do that except the ANC. Much as it is under the leadership of the ANC
that we have protected the minorities that are represented here, we were never
coerced to do that. We did it out of our own goodwill.
In conclusion, let me say that the DA is in a difficult situation because if
they can take a public stance on this position, the gay and lesbian communities
will expose some of their members who are in this Chamber and elsewhere and who
are gays and lesbians. Thank you. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY (Mr T S SETONA)
The [aj44]MINISTER
OF HOME AFFAIRS: Chairperson, thank you very much. I shouldn’t be responding to
the issues that have been raised here, because I think the hon Setona has
actually dealt in the main with all the issues that needed to be responded to.
Am I in trouble? I don’t think so. [Laughter.]
There are two issues, though, that I really would like to raise. One of the
issues that was raised by both the DA – I hope I heard correctly – and the FF
was a suggestion that perhaps we needed to do away with minority rights,
because if there is any suggestion of that nature, it may actually have very
dire consequences. In my view, if people are suggesting that ...
The [aj45]CHAIRPERSON
OF THE NCOP: Order, Minister. Hon Thetjeng, I think you were well-protected
when you had the floor and debated. Let’s not disturb other people. Let’s
listen rather to their response. I’m sure this is the time you have been
waiting for.
The [aj46]MINISTER
OF HOME AFFAIRS: Thank you, Chair. If there is a view that in determining
public policy, only the views of the majority should be listened to, I think it
could end, and not listen to the views of the minority. It could actually have
very serious consequences for some of the groupings and even political parties.
It may actually not be good for our democracy and it may not be healthy for our
state.
The other issue is, yes, I think what has come out clearly from the process is
that there is a need to deepen the process of public engagement on the matter,
and not only on this matter but on a whole range of issues which are quite
controversial in our community. Therefore the challenge for those of us who are
in leadership - because as public representatives we are leaders in our society
- is not to flinch from that responsibility and that challenge of actually
providing leadership in the course of this public discourse.
That, for me, is key in that beyond this – it is not about passing this piece
of legislation – we need to engage. Right now we have the challenge of coming
out with a single piece of marriage legislation, because the current piece of
legislation we have discriminates against a whole range of people, including
your religious communities.
Therefore, you must have a process of review. We need to complete the one that
has started. With that too, you need to engage with our people about what, in
fact, this means. Why is it that we preferred the route of coming out with a
piece of legislation, rather than having the Constitutional Court determining
for us, or coming out for us, or amending for us a piece of legislation? This
is the whole issue of separation of powers as well.
You couldn’t have had a Constitutional Court that was going to deliver a piece
of legislation to us, because if we had not gone this route, it would have
meant that the judges - I am not condemning them - would have determined for us
what should happen in terms of our laws in this country.
There is something called religious diversity, never mind that South Africa is
a secular state. I do worry. I am also a Christian, a very dedicated Christian
for that matter, and deeply religious at that. I worry about people who, when
they argue their points, actually make reference to the Bible being the supreme
constitution, because there are other documents that we could make reference to
as supreme constitutions of other religions. Hence the issue I am raising
around the issue of religious diversity in our country, because may actually run
the risk of promoting a particular religious grouping above the rest. It
doesn’t matter that, in your view, a particular religious grouping is a
minority in South Africa. That is your view.
The fact that the Bible is a supreme constitution is your personal view,
because you are a Christian. [Interjections.] Yes, it’s your view. You can’t
impose your view on the rest of the people. [Applause.] Yes, you’ve got to be
tolerant and appreciate the fact that you may believe in the Bible and read the
Bible every day, but another person reads the Koran, and that there are also
atheists in South Africa. We need to exercise religious tolerance.
I really believe that there are those of us who are intolerant when it comes to
religion. We do have that problem. I think it is one of those areas in which we
need to deepen our engagement and discussion, because we need to accept that in
South Africa not everybody is a Christian nor is everybody a Muslim. We
actually have other people who believe in other institutions.
Ntate Hendrickse raised the issue of domestic partnerships. It is good that you
raised it. You raised it, I think. Somebody raised the issue of domestic
partnerships. You know, the very people – members – were the first to say,
“There is no constitutional deadline on the issue of domestic partnerships. Why
should it be included in this piece of legislation this time around?”
In fact, across all sections of our society people were saying that this
particular area was not a priority, despite the fact that some of felt strongly
that the issue of domestic partnerships needed to be entrenched in this piece
of legislation, because it is, in fact, about the protection of women in South
Africa. This is because most of the people who lose at the end of the day and who
are in a disadvantaged position are women, and we needed to protect women.
But people agreed across society that the one section that we didn’t need here
was this section; that you could deal with it later because there is no reason
to rush it. It should not receive priority, hence the deletion of a chapter
that dealt with domestic partnerships.
The last issue I want to raise is ...
The [aj47]CHAIRPERSON
OF THE NCOP: I am sorry, Madam Minister, just a moment. I see some people on
the gallery using their cellphones to record. In terms of the Rules, you are
not allowed to record any speech in this House up in the gallery. Our speeches
are recorded and they are for public consumption. You can only get them through
the records of the Council and the records of Parliament. Please stop that.
The [aj48]MINISTER
OF HOME AFFAIRS: Thank you, Chair. We are all created in the image of God.
Those who believe in Allah believe they are created in that image, and that’s
it. This is what we believe, that we are created in some supreme power’s image.
This group of people also believe they are created in the image of that power
if God has allowed them to choose same-sex people as their partners, if that is
their sexual orientation. That is the other debate we need to get involved in
at some point: whether this is, in fact, a matter of choice or a scientific
issue.
Maybe this country needs to begin to talk about that now that we have reached
this point, so that as we judge people as we judge your children, because you
don’t know who you are have in your house, you don’t know who you have in your
family. As you have taken the decision or made the choice of being heterosexual
and marry a woman or a man as a partner, you should appreciate that other
people have taken different routes.
This Bill seeks to protect those kinds of people. I am not talking about people
who have decided to go underground. This Bill is not about people who are
mischievous. We are protecting people here who really believe that they have
relationships to solemnise, people who really believe that they are attracted,
they are in love with ... I am not talking about people here who decide that
when they are sitting here they are something else, but that when they are out
there they are a different story. [Laughter.]
In our society we also have that category of people. This Bill allows for
people to come out from underground. It empowers people to resurrect. Mabavuke.
[Let them wake up.] We are empowering our nation here. If, unfortunately,
people are saying that we are teaching our children sodomy, I think that is
unfortunate because for us it is not about imagining things that people then do
behind doors. It is about the love that develops between two people, and
therefore the solemnisation of a relationship.
What happens beyond that and what happens behind their doors and what they do
and how they do it really does not have anything to do with us. It is about
giving them dignity. It is about providing this equality. It is about granting
them the status, the benefits and the responsibilities that have been given to
some of us who are heterosexuals and who are sitting here in this Chamber.
How, unfortunately, that impacts, we believe, on society, on our children, on
the moral fibre of our society, is another story. But here is a particular
grouping of people who have rights the same as we do, who are here in our
society. They live; you cannot wish them off the face of the earth. You have
nowhere to throw them. If they have sinned ...
IsiXhosa[aj49]:
Lowo ke ongenaso isono, makabe ngowokuqala ukuphakamisa ilitye abaxulube.
Ndiyabulela. [Kwaqhwatywa.]
Debate concluded.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I shall now put the question. Order! Could you
please be orderly? I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill
be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties
an opportunity to make a declaration of vote if they so wish. Is there any
political party that wishes to do so?
Declarations of vote:
Mr O J TLHAGALE: Hon Chair, the UCDP is opposing this Bill on cultural as well
as religious grounds. Thanks.
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Thank you, Chairperson. I think I will just repeat what I
said there. The IFP is totally against this Bill.
Mr N D HENDRICKSE: Chair, I will also have to repeat that. The UIF is against
this Bill totally.
Mrs A N D QIKANI: Thank you, Chairperson. Andivumi, nakancinci. [I am totally
against it.]
Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, the FF will also vote against it, as I already
indicated in my contribution. Thank you, Chairperson.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, the ANC upholds the rule of law. It
respects the constitutional ruling, and has no intention of discriminating
against anyone. We are in favour of the equality clause. Thank you.
Mr A WATSON: Hon Chair, the DA, as was portrayed by our speaker, recognises the
diversity of not only our nation, but also of our members. Therefore it will
allow a free vote on this very important matter.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: We shall now proceed to voting on the question.
Those in favour say “aye”. Those against say “no”. I think the “ayes” have it.
The majority of members have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill
agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution. [Applause.]
Division demanded.
The Council divided.
[TAKE IN FROM MINUTES.]
Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
Ms N F MAZIBUKO
[aj1][[xxx Nov 28 10:22:31 2006]]
[aj2][[xxx Nov 28 10:32:22 2006]]
[aj3][[xxx Nov 28 10:33:55 2006]]
[aj4][[xxx Nov 28 10:43:33 2006]]
[aj5][[xxx Nov 28 10:43:33 2006]]
[aj6][[xxx Nov 28 10:44:59 2006]]
[aj7][[xxx Nov 28 10:48:40 2006]]
[aj8][[xxx Nov 28 10:45:24 2006]]
[aj9][[xxx Nov 28 10:48:40 2006]]
[aj10][[xxx Nov 28 10:49:02 2006]]
[aj11][[xxx Nov 28 10:48:40 2006]]
[aj12][[xxx Nov 28 10:49:02 2006]]
[aj13][[xxx Nov 28 10:48:40 2006]]
[aj14][[xxx Nov 28 10:49:02 2006]]
[aj15][[xxx Nov 28 10:50:02 2006]]
[aj16][[xxx Nov 28 10:49:02 2006]]
[aj17][[xxx Nov 28 10:50:02 2006]]
[aj18][[xxx Nov 28 10:50:02 2006]]
[aj19][[xxx Nov 28 10:50:02 2006]]
[aj20][[xxx Nov 28 10:50:02 2006]]
[jh21][[xxx Nov 28 10:51:06 2006]]
[aj22][[xxx Nov 28 10:51:25 2006]]
[aj23][[xxx Nov 28 10:52:44 2006]]
[aj24][[xxx Nov 28 10:52:44 2006]]
[aj25][[xxx Nov 28 10:56:22 2006]]
[aj26][[xxx Nov 28 10:56:53 2006]]
[aj27][[xxx Nov 28 10:59:01 2006]]
[aj28][[xxx Nov 28 10:59:06 2006]]
[aj29][[xxx Nov 28 11:00:59 2006]]
[aj30][[xxx Nov 28 11:03:07 2006]]
[aj31][[xxx Nov 28 11:04:41 2006]]
[aj32][[xxx Nov 28 11:04:58 2006]]
[aj33][[xxx Nov 28 11:09:17 2006]]
[aj34][[xxx Nov 28 11:10:47 2006]]
[aj35][[xxx Nov 28 11:10:29 2006]]
[aj36][[xxx Nov 28 11:12:44 2006]]
[aj37][[xxx Nov 28 11:15:56 2006]]
[aj38][[xxx Nov 28 11:16:04 2006]]
[aj39][[xxx Nov 28 11:16:48 2006]]
[aj40][[xxx Nov 28 11:22:05 2006]]
[aj41][[xxx Nov 28 11:23:17 2006]]
[tz42][[xxx Nov 28 11:21:53 2006]]
[tz43][[xxx Nov 28 11:21:54 2006]]
[aj44][[xxx Nov 28 11:29:26 2006]]
[aj45][[xxx Nov 28 11:30:59 2006]]
[aj46][[xxx Nov 28 11:31:05 2006]]
[aj47][[xxx Nov 28 11:38:00 2006]]
[aj48][[xxx Nov 28 11:42:02 2006]]
[aj49][[xxx Nov 28 11:42:26 2006]]