Order! I should like to thank hon members sincerely for their interest and sympathy during my recent illness. It was a great comfort to me.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, at the opening of Parliament the hon the State President delivered a speech on economic policy which was and still is of particular importance for South Africa, the principles of which will take some time to become established. In subsequent debates in the respective Houses of Parliament, extensive attention was given to the current state of the economy; and since the Main Budget Speech will be delivered in only four weeks from today, we considered that this was not the time to make an extensive analysis of the state of the South African economy. We felt, on the one hand, that we had already covered these aspects; and, on the other hand, we shall have to make a much more extensive study of the state of the economy when the Main Budget is presented. That will be a very important matter that we shall have to deal with. Moreover, by then we will have much more specific data available on the basis of which it will be possible to make analyses of the state of the economy. Consequently, my speech today is merely an administrative affair and so we shall not need to make a comprehensive analysis of the state of the economy on this occasion.

Hon members will know from experience that the Appropriation Act is promulgated only towards the middle of July. All governmental institutions that are financed wholly or partly from the Exchequer must, however, be enabled to meet their financial obligations during the period from 1

April until the date of promulgation of the Appropriation Act and this is done by means of the passing of the Part Appropriation Bill. It should be mentioned that, in terms of section 4 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, No 66 of 1975, funds appropriated by a Part Appropriation Act may be utilized only for services in respect of which expenditure was authorised by the Appropriation Act during the immediately preceding financial year, or in respect of which some other authorisation by Act of Parliament exists.

The Bill which is now being submitted seeks to authorise the financing of expenditure to be incurred by both the Central Authority and the four provinces on services already approved, until such time as the Appropriation Act, 1988, is promulgated. It is expected that an amount of R16 billion, which is made up as follows, will be sufficient to enable the aforementioned governmental institutions to meet their commitments in this regard.

†I must draw the attention of hon members to the fact that this year funds will have to be appropriated for a shorter period than was the case last year. Last year, as a result of a general election for members of the House of Assembly, the Main Budget was finalised only late in that year, and consequently funds had to be appropriated in the Part Appropriation Act, 1987, until the end of November 1987, while for this year it is necessary to appropriate funds only up to the end of July 1988.

As far as the central Government and the administrations for own affairs are concerned the amount now submitted for parliamentary approval is R11 billion less than the R24 billion appropriated in the Part Appropriation Act, 1987. The amounts now required for the four provinces compare as follows with the amounts reflected in the Part Appropriation Act, 1987.

Hon members will therefore understand that it would serve no purpose to use percentage differences to project the possible trend of the Main Budget. This should be avoided as it would be mere speculation and could have deleterious effects in various spheres, including the capital and money markets, where interest rates are at a particularly sensitive stage right now.

Debate to be proceeded with in each House.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon member for Springs I give notice that he will move tomorrow:

1. (1) the manner in which the televising of violence has been reduced;
   [Interjections.]
2. (2) increasing the quality of the cultural content on radio …

Shut up, man!

… Television services … [Interjections.] I am giving notice on behalf of the hon member for Springs.

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for an hon member of this House to shout “shut up!” across the floor to another hon member? [Interjections.] I submit that it is neither polite nor does it give a positive impression of the proceedings in this House.

Order! The hon member is correct and I agree with him. Which hon member shouted?

Mr Chairman, I shouted, but may I address you on a point of order?

Order! Let us first get this straight. Has the hon member withdrawn the words?

I withdraw the words, Mr Chairman.

Order! I shall listen to the hon member’s point of order.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it acceptable for an hon member to turn his back on you and, while another hon member is giving a notice of motion, to make a running commentary on the motion of which that hon member is giving notice? [Interjections.]

Order! Of course, that is not good manners. The hon member for Parow may proceed if he has not yet concluded.

Mr Chairman, the motion contains a third paragraph.

1. (3) the manner in which they still succeed …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it acceptable for an hon member to make signs to another hon member—signs which I am not prepared to explain here? I shall show them to you in private.

Order! The hon member is very welcome to come and see my in my chambers along with the other hon member. I saw no signs, however, and so I cannot make a ruling. The hon member for Parow may proceed.

I am trying to read out the third paragraph:

1. (3) the manner in which they still succeed in obtaining programmes of quality for televising inspite of boycott actions.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Order! The House is in Committee and no provision has been made for the privilege of the half-hour. The hon member is of course entitled to have more than one 10 minute speaking turn.

Mr Chairman, Rust der Winter, Moutse and Nebo which are situated in the vicinity of KwaNdebele—that is the homeland near Witbank, Middelburg and Groblersdal—remind me a great deal of Naboth’s vineyard. [Interjections.] Naboth had a vineyard which others coveted. Eventually he lost everything, even his life.

The region known as Rust der Winter, also has a small mine called Vergenoeg. Fluorspar is mined there. It is very interesting that this small mine was included at certain negotiations for geographic transfer to the homeland of KwaNdebele. Although this small mine lies exactly within the geographical area, it was eventually excluded after a certain period of time had lapsed. One wonders whose interests were being protected by the sudden exclusion of this small mine from the rest of Rust der Winter, which was to be incorporated into the homeland of KwaNdebele.

In the same way that Naboth could never have dreamt of his vineyard being taken from him, the farmers in the Rust der Winter region never dreamt that they would have to leave their places. The assurance had been given to them on more than one occasion that the Rust der Winter region would never be endangered as regards the territorial area of the KwaNdebele homeland. In 1983 the homeland’s borders had already been established and even the then Minister Piet Koornhof said there were going to be no border changes. People subsequently went to speak to him and he said that they would not incorporate or excise anything in respect of the territorial area of KwaNdebele.

It was only when the then chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development called in the chairman of the District Agricultural Union on Friday afternoon, 13 September 1985, and told him that the Government would on the following day offer Rust der Winter to the Cabinet of KwaNdebele, that it came to light that the town would also be included in KwaNdebele. People immediately realised that there was a snake in the grass and that an individual or a group of people, who had tried to alienate Rust der Winter from the Whites as well and include it in KwaNdebele, were behind these events.

The decision to incorporate Rust der Winter presumably came after the hon the State President had visited the national states. The investigation into the situation in regard to Rust der Winter was subsequently transferred from the Department of Education and Development Aid to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The previous standing committee could not in any way indicate who was in fact responsible for this draft resolution having been placed on the agenda and when the then chairman of the District Agricultural Union spoke in Pretoria to Mr Hendrik Tempel, the then chairman of the Standing Committee on Co-operation and Development, Mr Tempel told him that the Government was not prepared to consider petitions and evidence against the decision since the hon the State President had already committed the Government vis-á-vis the KwaNdebele government. That is where our problem lies. It was presumably another one of the hon the State President’s blunders.

There are Pedis living on a stretch of land near Moutse who are Lebowan subjects. This piece of land was excised and given to the Ndebele. The nine farms at Nebo, where on the other hand there are many Ndebele living, was taken in exchange for that from the Ndebele and given to Lebowa. It was too little, however. The Ndebele government argued that more land should be added and that is why Rust der Winter will today go to the Ndebele if we do not prevent it.

Some said it is taking place in order to be of some meaning to KwaNdebele, agriculturally speaking. It would give them a shot in the arm in order to get going agriculturally, yet they already had other irrigation areas. The Renosterkop Dam has been there since the beginning of the homeland’s development but as far as I know, not a single hectare is being irrigated from that dam. We just have to keep on giving.

This afternoon I want to state once again that giving away Rust der Winter has nothing to do with agriculture. There is a lot of land lying fallow in KwaNdebele, and many hectares where no cattle have left any tracks this year.

Rust der Winter is a sad tale for the farmers. It merely emphasises once again that the State is alienating itself from the farmers. On 2 March the NP is going to receive a shock when the Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke results are announced. I think there are hon members on that side of the Committee who have already received a shock over the past few months when they were told from one house to another that they were not welcome there.

The State no longer has the farmers’ interests at heart. The agreement between the Government and the Agricultural Union is that the SA Agricultural Union would be consulted whenever the incorporation of an area into other areas was being considered. In this case, however, it was not done at all. The chairman of the district’s agricultural union was merely informed that the next day Rust der Winter would be presented to the KwaNdebele Cabinet.

Was it that Friday?

It is now, as they say, democracy utterly destroyed, I could almost say violated. Even the standing committee found that no consultation had taken place with the farmers before Rust der Winter was offered. This is the way the Government deals with the farmers’ property. The present Government has no sympathy whatsoever for the farmers. It often rides rough-shod over the interests of the farmers in order to promote what they think are their own interests. The Government reveals its attitude towards the farmer as being one of “I distance myself from the farmer”. I would like to quote to hon members what people in that area are saying:

The land which is now being offered is approximately 34 500 hectares in extent, of which approximately 7 000 hectares are for irrigation or can be irrigated, having a total value, according to my humble estimate, of not less than R40 million. It provides job opportunities for between 4 000 and 7 000 people from the surrounding Black areas. These opportunities are now going to be lost. When KwaNdebele takes over Rust der Winter, farmers will not suddenly be available again overnight to take over where the present farmers are going to leave off. It is merely going to create more unemployment if these 5 000 to 7 000 Blacks have no work. Why then cannot Rust der Winter be separated from the rest of KwaNdebele?

That is partition!

I wrote a letter in which I asked that the interested farmers of Rust der Winter, Bloempoort and other areas should get together with the various officials and that we look for a solution to this problem of KwaNdebele and the new land which must be given to them. I am convinced that there is a solution, but what the Government is forcing upon the farmers now is not the solution. It is not a solution, Mr Chairman.

Partition.

It is autocratic.

Partition.

My answer is inter alia to keep Rust der Winter separate so that the Whites retain it. Allow Rust der Winter with its natural borders to remain a White area! Even though it might have longer borders with KwaNdebele, as the proposed borders of the new homeland will be, these borders are so natural that everyone respects them. Let the Whites keep Rust der Winter. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Witbank has now had a great deal to say about Rust der Winter being opened up and the inclusion of that area into KwaNdebele. I must say that I did not see the hon member very often at the standing committees which dealt with this matter. I should nonetheless like to remind the hon member of the fact that when he spoke about the inclusion, and subsequently also about the exclusion of certain areas, there was also an area close to his part of the world which he definitely did not think about. I am now referring to the greater portion of the Mapoch area. In 1975, this area just north of Witbank was also included in that proposal. Subsequently it was excluded. The Vergenoeg mine is therefore no exception. I do not know why the hon member is so concerned. At a later stage the hon member should listen to the hon the Minister’s reply. The hon the Minister will spell out this matter to him very clearly.

Of course what is very strange, Mr Chairman, is how the hon member for Witbank drew a line straight through the CP’s policy of partition. [Interjections.] It is true, Sir, and I want to indicate it to you as well.

I am reminded that the hon member for Pietersburg once said that every farmer in South Africa should place a query mark against the title deed of his farm because the final borders of the White fatherland have not yet been established. The hon member for Witbank is therefore saying precisely the opposite of what the hon member for Pietersburg said earlier.

I want to enlighten the hon member for Witbank on the background to what led up to this decision.

The hon the State President’s visit!

It was part of the 1983 consolidation proposals affecting Lebowa and KwaNdebele, that Saaiplaas and Moutse would be incorporated into KwaNdebele. What actually happened was that the governments of Lebowa and KwaNdebele simply could not succeed in reaching a solution among themselves to the future status of Moutse and Saaiplaas. In fact, according to our information, those governments at one stage did not even want to discuss the matter. The South African Government then had to look into it because a decision in that regard had to be taken. After all, the country must be governed.

Because the negotiations between KwaNdebele and Lebowa had reached an impasse, the South African Government took a decision. The decision was that Saaiplaas would be added to Lebowa territory, while Moutse would become part of KwaNdebele. Furthermore the RSA Government decided that the farms Bloedfontein, Geweerfontein and Kalkfontein, which are part of KwaNdebele’s area of jurisdiction, would at a later stage be added to Bophuthatswana’s territory, and that the Rust der Winter area would be added to the area of jurisdiction of KwaNdebele, after having been bought by the SA Development Trust.

This decision by the South African Government was taken for various reasons. One of the most important reasons for this decision was the need for good agricultural land which was expressed by KwaNdebele. I do not know how many times the hon member for Witbank has travelled through the whole of KwaNdebele, but when one visits that area, one is struck by the lack of good agricultural land—agricultural land which could be commercially managed in a profitable way. This is a tremendous lack. The decision of the South African Government regarding Rust der Winter would also serve to round off the consolidation packages for Bophuthatswana, Lebowa and KwaNdebele.

After hon members of the PFP expressed the opinion on the Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs and Development Aid that insufficient consultation had taken place with the affected parties, this standing committee decided to call witnesses and to determine precisely what the situation was. Memoranda were received from those affected individuals and bodies, and evidence was heard on 24, 25 and 26 November 1986. It is impossible to enumerate all the memoranda, but I do have the list here with me. On that occasion we received 17 memoranda, which were dealt with very thoroughly on the standing committee for a period of three days.

Furthermore, I want to tell the committee that after those memoranda were dealt with and evidence taken, the standing committee evaluated this matter and took a decision on it. I think that for the sake of honesty in this debate I should read out the exact wording of the standing committee’s decision. On 19 October the standing committee adopted the following resolution:

1. (1) consultation had not taken place according to the conventional, accepted method as agreed upon between the Government and organised agriculture;
2. (2) affected parties be afforded a further opportunity to testify before the committee in order to make inputs concerning the proposed opening up of the Rust der Winter area.

The standing committee did not hide anything at all because they included a third point in their resolution, in which it was very clearly stated:

[Interjections.] Is that not a clear proof to the hon member for Witbank that there were no shenanigans, but that we evaluated the evidence honestly and took an honest decision on it?

We went further, and the hon member knows nothing about that either because he was not there. We heard evidence for a second time and I shall react to that in a moment. It is therefore clear that organised agriculture was not ignored in this process, but that because of a specific situation, the usual method of consultation was deviated from. In this case it occurred on a limited scale, but it is untrue to say that there was no consultation whatsoever. The hon member for Cradock will go into this matter in greater detail later.

The standing committee subsequently decided to hear further evidence concerning the decision of adding Rust der Winter to KwaNdebele territory. The standing committee met again in Pretoria on 19, 20 and 21 October 1987. All points of view were considered thoroughly, and once again we had the interminable list of persons who were invited in the public media to come and give evidence. Those bodies came, and for the sake of completeness we even went so far as to permit the SA Federation of Beekeepers’ Associations … [Interjections.] … to give evidence before the committee. We also allowed the Wildlife Association of Southern Africa to do so. Agricultural bodies, people in their personal capacities, private bodies and all other interested groups were therefore invited to come.

While the standing committee was in Pretoria the government of KwaNdebele also asked to give evidence before the committee. That government said that it did not consider it necessary because they were in agreement with the decision of the RSA Government on the incorporation of Rust der Winter into KwaNdebele.

After the standing committee had concluded its activities on 21 October 1987, the Government of KwaNdebele invited all members of the standing committee to pay a visit to KwaNdebele on 12 November. All parties of the three Houses of Parliament were present; only the hon members of the CP and the hon members of the PFP were conspicuous by their absence. Those are now the parties who are opposing this measure here.

I should like to thank the Government and all the parties in the standing committee who support this measure for the way in which they dealt with the matter and the resolution they adopted. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that the hon member Dr Golden has placed on record the fact that we requested this consultation. It did, in fact, take place and 17 memoranda were presented to the standing committee. A number of farmers claimed that the Government and the department had dealt with them in a high-handed manner and that they had not been properly consulted. In the end, however, I think they were given the opportunity to present their point of view to the standing committee.

The PFP is nevertheless still opposed to the incorporation of Rust der Winter into KwaNdebele, not because of the racist opinions which some have expressed, such as that such good land should not be given to Black people or that they would not be able to handle an irrigation scheme properly …

That is not racist; they themselves admit they cannot handle it.

… or that they would not be able to run the bee farms adequately. It is not for those reasons that we are against the incorporation. We oppose it because we believe it to be part of the juggling with land and people in terms of the Government’s ideological desire to settle people into tidy pockets or cubbyholes. It is also part of the whole sordid deal aimed at creating a viable homeland for KwaNdebele so that if it indeed becomes independent, it will look a lot more reasonable than it does at present, and not be nothing more than a clutch of farms somewhere in the Eastern Transvaal.

We are not opposed to Black people acquiring land, but we believe it should not take place in this manner, a manner designed to promote the idea of eventual independence. We are quite happy for Black people to acquire land inside a South Africa which is one entity and should not be broken up into independent states.

What is the situation of Rust der Winter? It has already been mentioned that it is an area of approximately 34 000 hectares owned by White people. It is only those farmers who are insolvent or almost destitute who rejoice at having found a cash buyer for their properties in these very difficult financial times. Organised agriculture involved in the long battle to save Rust der Winter found it extremely hard to be heard. As I have mentioned, they claim that the department and the Government were at times arrogant and high-handed in dealing with them.

A large number of farmers wish to remain on their farms in Rust der Winter and continue with their farming operations, but what is this Government doing? They are persisting in their futile attempts to establish homelands, a policy which has cost us dearly both in terms of credibility and in cash. One has only to refer to the recent incidents towards the end of last year in Transkei and last week in Bophuthatswana to find the Government’s persistence in this policy of creating so-called ethnic units questionable. There is no doubt that the events in Bophuthatswana last week cost us dearly in terms of credibility throughout the world, and this policy costs us a large amount of cash as we will discover when the estimates are presented on 18 March.

Why does the Government persist in this policy? Surely it is the policy of the CP, in spite of what the hon member for Witbank said here today, and should be left to them. Why must the Government pursue a policy which is promoted vigorously by the CP? It is a policy which is discredited and which has cost us dearly, and there is no reason for the Government to hitch its wagon to that star.

The incorporation of Rust der Winter into KwaNdebele is sordid. I say this because it is undoubtedly so if one looks at the history of the area, and merely the most recent history is sufficient. There was the incorporation of Moutse, which involved the transfer of approximately 126 000 Northern Sotho people from Lebowa to KwaNdebele, much to the anger of the Lebowa people. The Lebowa government brought a court action against the central Government. Then there was the transfer to Lebowa of the Nebo farms near Groblersdal as compensation to Lebowa for the loss of Moutse. Then there was the alienation of the Rust der Winter farmers as a result of the intention to incorporate the area into KwaNdebele to compensate for the loss of Nebo. Then there is the inclusion of Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein into Bophuthatswana and the need for ground to resettle the 15 000 residents of these farms. These people are still resisting this resettlement.

This is part of the pattern of moving people around to tidy up the map of the Eastern and central Transvaal to make it look ethnically correct, and it is that juggling to which we are opposed.

I understand that the residents of Bloedfontein were given the undertaking that they would be allowed to give evidence to the standing committee, and this has not yet happened. The hon member Dr Golden said that PFP members were not present in the committee at one stage.

I was away during the last half of last year and I was therefore not able to be present. I understand, however, that this undertaking was given to the Bloedfontein people and that it has not been fulfilled yet.

What benefits of the proposed land swop have materialised after all this juggling? Lebowa is as angry as ever because they have lost Moutse. The Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein residents are as frustrated as ever and still hope for a reprieve, and they do not want to move to Rust der Winter. The farmers of Rust der Winter, other than those who are insolvent or destitute, are dissatisfied with the proposed incorporation into KwaNdebele, and the state of internal matters in KwaNdebele is as shocking as ever. I have mentioned the situation in KwaNdebele on previous occasions in this House and I have no reason to believe that the situation is improving.

As evidence of that I wish to draw hon members’ attention to an order issued by Brigadier Lerm on 5 February 1988, just ten days ago. This order restricts the entire royal family from moving outside the boundaries of the self governing state of KwaNdebele, from taking part in any interview with any journalist, or contributing, preparing or compiling, in any manner whatsoever, any matter for publication in any publication as defined in the Internal Security Act. Those are the three main points of this order.

This entire family is therefore in effect subject to what could be termed house arrest by being prohibited from moving outside the boundaries of KwaNdebele. They are not allowed to conduct any interview with any journalist or news reporter or news commentator. There is a denial of the freedom of the Press as far as these people are concerned and they are not allowed to publish any matter which the Commissioner of Police may decide is in conflict with the Internal Security Act.

The situation in KwaNdebele is anything but desirable. The people who live there have complained bitterly at the action of the KwaNdebele government. It is not improving as I have suggested by reading from the proclamation. It is nothing more than a township or, as someone said to me the other day, nothing more or nothing less than a ‘lokasie’, for Pretoria and Johannesburg with something like 70 000 people commuting to their place of work each day under the most difficult circumstances.

I have mentioned before the number of people moving in and out of KwaNdebele by bus each day—it is quite a sight to behold. These people have to live under the most difficult of circumstances, work all those kilometres away and travel those long distances each day in and out of KwaNdebele.

In addition to all this, Ekangala was added to KwaNdebele at the end of last year. Thousands of people have been added to a homeland under false pretenses. They were moved to Ekangala from the townships of the East Rand some years ago as they were told that there were no houses available for them in those townships. No mention was ever made of incorporation into a homeland or the possibility of that homeland becoming independent.

Now what kind of policy is this when the rights of Lebowa are violated, the rights of the people of Bloedfontein are violated, the rights of the people of Ekangala are violated, the rights of the farmers are not respected and the plight of the Moutse people falls on deaf ears? Supreme Court cases flourish, tensions multiply, freedoms are curtailed and now Rust der Winter is to be added to KwaNdebele.

The ethnic make-up of the area does not lend itself to the establishment of an ethnically controlled homeland. There are people of various other ethnic groups living in that area and they do not want to be controlled by Ndebele people. Many of the farmworkers in Rust der Winter are not Ndebeles and they have no desire to live in a homeland controlled by Ndebeles.

Finally, there is the question of the valuators who were sent into the Rust der Winter area towards the end of last year before the standing committee had taken any decision on the question of transferring this area to KwaNdebele. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is significant that when one talks about agricultural land that has to be transferred to a self-governing territory, the champions of the Black people’s cause on the one hand and the advocates of partition on the other are both opposed to the promotion of the Black people’s interests.

I am referring specifically to the remarks made in this House by the previous speaker, the hon member for Johannesburg North, in which the hon member referred to the financial decline and the deteriorating position of KwaNdebele.

As the hon member Dr Golden, who spoke before me, has already indicated, they were not prepared to visit that area. Therefore they want to be informed of the position in KwaNdebele by report only. In the same way they loudly proclaim that “a large number of farmers were not interested in being included in the area to be expropriated”. This is not true. As a person who was involved in organised agriculture for quite a number of years, I got the distinct impression that the people who gave evidence there on behalf of organised agriculture were mainly bent on exploiting this matter for the sake of political gain. Secondly, I think it could not even be said that they always had an interest in the area under discussion. Thirdly, the people who were speaking on behalf of the farmers of Rust der Winter indicated that 70% of those farmers in the scheduled area, which is approximately 1 800 ha in extent, were satisfied and had asked to be scheduled. I should like to read from a document prepared by a liaison committee which was formed after organised agriculture, the Rust der Winter farmers’ association, had not operated for 18 months. The result was that they had not been able to make any inputs into the Warmbaths District Agricultural Union. They consequently formed a liaison committee which wrote a letter to the hon the State President in which they said the following:

Those people indicated very clearly to us that in spite of drought and economic problems, they have received 87% of their available water in recent years. So this is not an area which has gone into a financial decline and the inhabitants of which have asked for their land to be incorporated into KwaNdebele, as the hon member for Johannesburg North said. All they asked was not to be kept waiting any longer, for the moment uncertainty arises, stagnation sets in. That is what these people requested.

I reject the allegation that the people who gave evidence concerning the exclusion of this land approached the matter objectively. I submit that insufficient consideration was given to the views of the affected farmers to whom I have referred, the views of this liaison committee.

Furthermore, I submit that discussions have been conducted here with a view to political gain, as I have already indicated. I want to quote what was said by a person who in my opinion was not even a real land-owner. In his documents, which are being distributed in the name of organised agriculture—in my experience of organised agriculture over the years, it is not an organisation which engages in political lobbying—he says:

Does that not sound like the typical statement that we hear in this House from time to time? It comes from organised agriculture. Mr Chairman, you will not blame me today for saying, as a person who has been involved in organised agriculture, that I am very sorry that agriculture is always being dragged into debates in this House and turned into a political football. Elections have been fought around agriculture this afternoon. [Interjections.]

I want to submit this afternoon, therefore, that this is a continuation of the politics of resistance that we encountered in the statements made during the no-confidence debate. Hon members assert that they are in favour of partition, but when meaningful partition has to be implemented, it is said that the Blacks have to buy this land. I ask those hon members: Where must they find the money to do so? It is clear to me that the CP’s policy is impracticable. I want to know how the advocates of such a policy can avoid violating their conscience in this House. I also find that it is selfish to say that they are prepared to give land, as long as it is not high-potential agricultural land, land on which a large number of Black farmers can be viably settled under an irrigation scheme, land with the potential for creating job opportunities, not only for people from outside, but also for people within that area.

I want to go further by saying that I think there should be a relocation of the people in this area. That is why the territory has to be expanded. It must not be a forced removal, but a removal to an area where there are job opportunities. That is what Rust der Winter is required for. We must make this territory self-sufficient.

I submit that the agricultural land of KwaNdebele is not sufficient at present to meet the needs of a country and to make it self-sufficient in respect of agriculture and the raw materials associated with it. It is essential, therefore, that we give these people a rural area where they can resettle as a rural community and where job opportunities can be promoted.

We cannot go on applying double standards in this House. The clear and consistent message that was conveyed to me on the days on which these people were able to give evidence was that they were opposed to incorporation until the true facts concerning the farmers in that area came to light. I also want to mention that as a former member of organised agriculture, I am convinced that these borders have been demarcated in a meaningful way and will not cause any inconvenience to the adjacent farmers.

I fully support this motion, therefore, and I should like this decision to be carried out as soon as possible in the interests of the people of KwaNdebele.

Mr Chairman, in opposing most vehemently the incorporation of Rust der Winter into the KwaNdebele homeland, I want to say that what is taking place here only highlights the transfiguration of South Africa along the road to an imperial presidency.

The hon the State President keeps on talking about the broadening of democracy and presenting himself as the great defender of that democracy. However, when one examines his actions one gets a completely different impression. I think maybe this is what the hon member for Cradock refers to when he talks about “double standards”. The people of South Africa are saying that the hon the State President and the NP Government are giving South Africa away progressively. It is quite obvious from what is happening in KwaNdebele that this is, in fact, quite correct. We ask how many more Rust der Winters lie ahead for the farming community of South Africa.

I think it is important to mention a very significant fact surrounding the whole activity of the standing committee which considered the incorporation into KwaNdebele, and that is that everyone who made representations, including the NP chairman, Mr Jacobs, who subsequently appealed for a speedy end to the discussions, opposed the incorporation of Rust der Winter into KwaNdebele. The reason why the NP chairman finally supported it is given in his evidence, where he said:

*On 5 December, a reply to this telegram was received from the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs, Mr Wilkens. The letter confirming the telegram read as follows:

That is why the decision was accepted.

In referring to an imperial president, I want to read from page 5 of the Memorandum of Evidence given by a certain Mr Van Heerden, a member of the farming community:

1. (1) Die besluit is geneem op gesag van die Staatspresident.

It was quite clear during the proceedings of the standing committee that we were only there to rubber-stamp the decision which had already been taken by the hon the State President. Once again I appeal to the Government, and to the hon the Minister in particular, to reconsider the incorporation of Rust der Winter as a matter of urgency. It is very clear that what is happening there does not meet with the approval of any person or body.

†We have heard the hon member Dr Golden state that the KwaNdebele government refused to testify because they supported the measure. I am sure that they would. Anyone who was offered 100 000 ha of South African land in exchange for 35 000 ha would be rather foolish not to support the measure. We on this side of the House would have liked to have had a representative from that government there because it would have given us the opportunity to question him as to how he saw the land being used and what he was going to do to ensure future employment for the 5 000 to 7 000 Pedi and Tswana people who are presently employed in that area.

Reasons were given to organised agriculture in a ministerial press release.

*The reasons given for the late incorporation of this area are—

According to a report submitted by the Elands River Farmers’ Association, which forms part of the Pretoria District Agricultural Union, the Government should, according to them—

1. i) die algehele verset van die Pedi teen die inlywing van die Pedi-hartland van Moutse;
2. ii) die onaanvaarbaarheid van die vervreemding van die hartland van die Ndebele by Nebo;
3. iii) die uitgesproke verset van die inwoners van Bloedfontein, Geweerfontein en Kalkfontein teen hervestiging;
4. iv) die populêre verset van die oorgrote meerderheid van die inwoners (van alle stamme—insluitend die Ndebele) teen die ontwikkeling van ’n etnies beheerde tuisland;
   and
5. v) die gemotiveerde weerstand van georganiseerde landbou teen die verplasing van die boere in ag te neem en téén so ’n inlywing en wat dit verteenwoordig, te besluit.

I am sure that if this whole situation were to be reconsidered in a very careful and reasoned manner, a solution would soon be found which would be acceptable to the majority of the parties involved.

†I want to refer to a memorandum submitted by the Waterberg Warmbaths District Agricultural Union by their representative, Mr L L Bosman. I refer to this not to single it out as particularly good, because as you can see from the bundle in my hand, a lot of testimony was delivered. I refer to it because I think he puts the whole question into a nutshell. First of all he illustrates the shock experienced by the farmers in view of the fact that in 1983 the Government gave organised agriculture the assurance that the borders of the state of KwaNdebele had been finalised. I think to give a guarantee to people in 1983 and then to reverse that places serious doubt upon the credibility of the Government. He then goes on to say that during his first visit to Rust der Winter Mr Wilkens explained that Rust der Winter was needed as compensation to KwaNdebele since the State had to yield land to Lebowa. He goes on to say that even if one excludes the 34 500 ha as far as Rust der Winter is concerned KwaNdebele will still get 70 600 ha. This is a very fair exchange for 32 057 ha which the Government intends removing from KwaNdebele. I am sure hon members will agree with me.

He talks about work opportunities and says that largely Pedis and Tswanas will be unemployed as a result of this incorporation.

He goes further and talks about the viability of the area in the hands of the Ndebele. According to the hon member for Johannesburg-North this is racist. He says that at the moment there are no Ndebele farmers who could take full advantage of the area, and he asks what is going to happen to it in the meantime.

The Government presents itself as being concerned about the depopulation of the rural areas. What do they think is going to happen to the rural areas around Rust der Winter?

He goes on to talk about the disadvantages to solvent farmers. He says:

That is a further setback for the hon the Minister of Agriculture.

Then he talks about the division of farming units which will cause grazing land to be lost and people to find themselves in further financial problems.

He also talks about the fact that the area earmarked for incorporation is a poor area for development and, as it is located 100 kilometres from the nearest work opportunities and has no rail transport, we cannot but agree with him. The alternative solution is to exclude the Rust der Winter area and we fully support that attitude.

In connection with departmental planning he says:

The proposals of 1983 were not only acceptable to the people of Rust der Winter and to the people of the RSA, but also to the people and the Government of KwaNdebele.

One aspect that he did not cover in his report was the security aspect which was covered very well by Gen Fourie, one of the people who attended. Even in view of that it is another serious aspect which adds to the complications which one can expect with the incorporation of Rust der Winter into the KwaNdebele homeland.

I close by addressing a final appeal to the hon the Minister and to the NP Government: Please do not desert the Rust der Winter farmers. Help our agricultural sector instead of trying to flatten them.

Mr Chairman, the multiracial composition of the population of the RSA has developed in the course of history and probably presents us with one of the greatest challenges of our time. It is one of the greatest challenges, because we in this country, whether we like it or not, will have to reside together, work together and live together peacefully.

While the planning of the consolidation of these self-governing areas and independent states is in progress, new demands are still being made, reproaches are being levelled and various standpoints are being adopted. These standpoints must also be taken thoroughly into account when a decision is taken on the laying down of borders. The Government is working purposefully to give the Black man what is his due so that he can also meet and accept his responsibilities and stabilise his future in this country. We must have no illusions that the stability of the Black man in this country goes hand in hand with the perpetuation of our own future.

Today we again experienced reproaches being levelled and demands being made and that is why it sometimes takes the Government a long time to reach a decision when it concerns the consolidation of such areas. I should like to emphasise that it is essential for additional land, particularly agricultural land for the production of food, to be made available. Any objective observer will have to agree that the proposals as they now appear on the map finalise meaningful consolidation. The hon member for Witbank also admitted this by implication. He made an appeal for the retention of the Rust der Winter area, even if the borders are longer.

I think this is an admission that this is really meaningful planning, for which I should like to congratulate the department and the committee. We can now round off matters properly. I want to concede at once that this is not going to take place without sacrifices, painful sacrifices. We must understand this. It is not easy to hand over one’s land. This is land which has sometimes been in the hands of a single family for generations. It is for that reason that the State also offers ample compensation.

Now the question arises what the policy of the CP is. They are not prepared to tell us what the White homeland is going to look like after they have laid down the borders.

What about those farmers?

However they now have a lot to say about these farmers who are going to be affected, but how is the position of the farmer going to be affected? The question arises where and under what circumstances land is going to be purchased under CP rule. Can it be high potential land, or must it only be poor land? Do they expect the Black peoples to pay for that land themselves? If so, what will the position of the White farmer then be? What price will he get for his land? Where can he go to negotiate?

I want to draw the attention of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis and the hon member for Witbank to the fact that the hon member for Lichtenburg, in his capacity as Deputy Minister, did a great deal of work to speed up and finalise consolidation. Now suddenly it is no longer good enough. I want to draw their attention to the successful development and expansion of Bophuthatswana. This would never have been possible without the meaningful consolidation of land.

Both these hon members of the CP, as well as the PFP, said that this land was now being thrown to the wolves; that valuable land was being lost. For that reason I really regret that the hon members could not find the time or take the trouble to visit KwaNdebele to see what the STC has achieved there. The STC has succeeded in perfecting the establishment of small farmers.

I have here in front of me a draft plan for one of these areas in the Rust der Winter area. It is a small area of 210 hectare which consists of 76 hectares of grazing and 134 hectares of other land. It is enlightening to look at this very thorough planning. Provision has even been made for the fencing, and it has been worked out down to the minutest detail that a kilometre of fencing will cost R1 385. The materials and layout for irrigation have been worked out down to the minutest detail—the sinking of a borehole, engines, houses, reservoirs, and so on.

Provision has been made for a production programme for maize. In this process soil samples are being carefully taken. Recommendations are being made regarding the correct amount of fertiliser and the kind of fertiliser which must be applied. I am only referring to a few salient points—soil cultivation, fertiliser application, analysis, planting time and cultivar, the state of plants on that land, weed control, insect control, economy and extension. I can carry on in this vein. Very thorough work has already been done.

There is even a livestock management program which makes provision for the utilisation of grazing, the utilisation of the lands, the plant residues after the crop has been harvested, the control of the farm livestock remaining on the farm and the purchase of livestock to utilise those plant residues after the harvest. There is even a statement showing revenue and expenditure, and I merely want to mention here that a farming profit of R12 122 is foreseen, with a total available income of R6 649.

No provision has been made at all in this amount for the sale of livestock because the livestock will also be partly for domestic use, for example milk and meat. There will nevertheless be an income from that livestock, which has not been taken into consideration.

I feel it should be clear to everyone that the State certainly does not intend to allow that valuable land to be neglected, but that everything possible will be done to maintain it in productive units and to convert it in order to help those new farmers to get the best out of that land, to the advantage of their own people and of South Africa.

I should like all of us here to pay tribute to the farmers who up to now have been prepared to sell their land, and to the 70% to 75% of farmers in these areas who are again prepared to sell their land. It is they who must make the sacrifices. Our sacrifice is small; perhaps nothing at all. It may consist only of our tax contribution; other than that it may be negligible. For that reason I should like us to give recognition to those farmers who are prepared to make the sacrifice in the interests of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal I want to pursue the matter I raised before my time expired a short while ago. That is the question of the valuators who were sent to Rust der Winter towards the end of last year. They apparently caused a degree of uncertainty among the farmers, and I hope the hon the Minister will explain to us, when he replies to this debate, how it was possible that the valuators were sent into that area before the memorandum was finally agreed to by the standing committee. I accept that it had been before the committee for some time, but I understand that the valuators were moving around the Rust der Winter area doing their work and valuing the farms. I should like to know how it was possible that they went in before the decision had been taken to incorporate that area into KwaNdebele.

Finally, Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Golden and the hon member for Cradock made mention of the fact that the hon member for Berea and I did not go to KwaNdebele when the members of the standing committee made their visit at the invitation of the KwaNdebele government. My own position—I must make it quite clear—is that I explained to the chairman of the standing committee that I was to be away. I also wrote him a letter explaining the circumstances. I was overseas at the time. I do not know therefore what purpose there is in going to the trouble of explaining to the chairman when one is then attacked in the House for not going on a visit of that nature.

The hon member for Berea was not able to attend because he was about to proceed overseas as well. The fact, however, that we did not go on that visit is of no consequence because both the hon member for Berea and I know the KwaNdebele area extremely well. We have been there on many occasions. We know what is going on in that territory. There was therefore no need for us to go. I would certainly have gone on that visit if I had been here, Sir. I would have gone in order to hear the arguments on the part of the Government. So, there was no question of my not wanting to go on the visit. Had I been here I would have gone, but I made my apologies in the correct way, and I take exception at the fact that I am attacked here by two members of the standing committee for doing the proper thing.

As I have said, I know what is going on in KwaNdebele. I think I know better than a lot of hon members of the NP what is going on in KwaNdebele.

Mr Chairman, there is an easy solution to the problem in connection with KwaNdebele. Leave Rust der Winter in the hands of the Whites, and let Moutse, which was taken from Lebowa, where the Bapedi live, and given to KwaNdebele, and where more than one body has been buried during the past year owing to murder and manslaughter, remain part of Lebowa. Let Nebo, where Njalel and Mapoch are buried, remain Ndebele land. Then we are all happy. Why force the issue? Why order people about?

Mr Chairman, what astounds me is that the then Minister, dr Piet Koornhof, said in 1983 that the borders were final; no one should talk about them again. However, two years later a big discovery was made. On 13 September 1985 we heard the Rust der Winter was going to be offered to the KwaNdebele Cabinet the following day. What a turn about! What a tragic step by the Government! They went from one extreme to the other. They said that everything had been finalised; nothing further could be done about the matter. They said that people could come and see them and adopt a thousand standpoints; the decision had been taken. Rust der Winter was going to KwaNdebele.

That is our problem. The problem is that the essence of democracy has been assailed. The problem is that the SA Agricultural Union, which was assured that they would be able to make an input, was ignored entirely.

The Government does not know what is going on in that part of the world. It is my part of the world; I know what is going on there. They think they are going to bring about peace and tranquility there, but Rust der Winter is still going to haunt them. Rust der Winter is going to haunt them on 2 March 1988. They are going to find out that the farmers no longer trust them, because the farmers are starting to trust the CP more. [Interjections.]

It is not true that KwaNdebele does not have agricultural land, as the hon member Dr Golden said. Some of the best agricultural land is in that area. Some of the best land for growing maize is in KwaNdebele. Nor is it of any use to give land because giving is giving. There is a great deal of agricultural land there which has not even been used because the infrastructure does not exist yet. Why be so hasty? Why simply decide that the land must go, no matter whom one hurts?

This afternoon I am asking that we should not be hasty about Rust der Winter. This afternoon I am asking that we reconsider this in the Committee. For that reason we cannot support the recommendation that Rust der Winter go to the KwaNdebele homeland.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the debate, but before replying to it, at the very outset, particularly because he is not here, I should like to thank the hon member for Turffontein, the chairman of the relevant standing committee, very sincerely for the patient and competent way in which he dealt with a very delicate matter which was on the agenda of the standing committee for a long time.

I think that in this respect all three Houses of Parliament are especially indebted to him.

Just to set the record straight, I should like to refer to that aspect of the report which was not discussed in the debate at all and about which, judging by the lack of response, there is obviously consensus. I am speaking about the proposal that a certain area in the Groeneberg vicinity in the Inanda district of Natal be made available as compensatory land for the members of the Magadi tribe who have lost 532 ha of their land in the Umgeni valley owing to the water level of the new Umgeni Dam and should therefore be compensated and provided with a new settlement area. I am grateful for the apparent consensus on this matter as, in fact, there is also consensus between the tribe, the KwaZulu Government and the South African Government.

As far as the Rust der Winter area is concerned, I particularly want to associate myself with the sympathetic and understanding remark made by the hon member for Walvis Bay when he pointed out that the agricultural population of South Africa had to make considerable sacrifices and often cope with painful experiences in order to contribute to the implementation of the consolidation policy, and that in future the Government, too, would therefore, as it has rightly done in the past, continue to meet its obligations by granting them proper compensation.

I am convinced that although, quite rightfully, they always strongly press for their interests, and in many cases try, by way of opposition, to remain in possession of their land, ultimately our farming population nevertheless readily makes these sacrifices. In the case of Rust der Winter, too, there is no doubt that this matter affects people and families that have been established there over a long period, many of them being exceptionally successful farmers.

The hon member for Cradock rightly said that the co-operation and support for the buying up of that area did not come, as one of the hon members said, from bankrupt or economically weak farmers, but specifically from successful farmers who have an understanding of the fact that the addition of this land to KwaNdebele will fundamentally strengthen the economy of that area.

Having said that, I just want to point in passing to two pieces of evidence hon members quoted from what representatives of the farming community had said before the standing committee. The first is the reference of the hon member for Cradock to a chief spokesman of the farming community whose principal argument for his rejection of the Government’s decision was that it was a “minority White Government”.

Must I accept that the farmers of that area—the hon member for Witbank will be able to tell me— are the kind of people who represent the PFP’s standpoint when they say that the Government of this country does not, in actual fact, have any legitimacy because it is a so-called “minority White Government”? [Interjections.] This just goes to show how one can be manipulated, as with evidence that is suited to the occasion one moment and unsuitable the next.

Reference was also made here to the evidence of a certain Mr Van Heerden before the standing committee. His land is not even included in the scheme; he lives on adjacent land. I can now say that he recently asked that his land should also be bought up and included in the scheme.

Although one has great respect for the tremendous disruption and hardship of many families, we must nevertheless be careful to note the degree of opportunism that becomes apparent in some parts of the evidence before such a committee.

A great deal was said here about the procedure involved in consultation. It has been alleged that in 1983 a guarantee—a “waarborg”—was given, and of course that is untrue. I should just like to place the position in regard to consultation with organised agriculture, against the background of so-called “waarborge” or guarantees, in its proper perspective for a moment.

The consolidation decision, as announced on 25 September 1985 by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, announced the inclusion of both sections of Rust der Winter, including its irrigation areas, and also the more extensive portion of the farming enterprise to the east of the irrigation areas. The truth is that a little more than two years previously, on 21 July 1983, when the first consolidation decisions in regard to KwaNdebele were promulgated, Rust der Winter was not mentioned, and was therefore, by implication, excluded. This created a reasonable expectation, amongst the owners and farmers, that this situation would prevail. That is indeed the case. No explicit guarantee was, however, given; it was simply not included.

Then, as time went by, after a serious study of the needs in regard to the proper formation of a geopolitical state for both Lebowa and KwaNdebele, the conclusion was reached that the consolidation package, as promulgated on 25 September 1985, was the necessary solution, there had to be a reassessment of the decision in regard to the inclusion or exclusion of Rust der Winter.

Without consulting the farmers!

Let me make it very clear. On 19 February 1983, even before the erstwhile resolution that Rust der Winter be excluded, the then chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development widely advertised proposals for the possible inclusion of Rust der Winter, particularly the eastern portion. Maps were drawn up presenting several alternative possibilities. Those maps were distributed by the local building societies, by the agricultural union and by several other bodies. On 2 June 1983 a special sitting was held by the commission in Bronkhorstspruit to hear evidence on that area and its possible inclusion. Therefore Rust der Winter, and in particular the eastern portion, was in fact part of the draft plan at the time. Evidence was heard. It was therefore not a matter which suddenly materialised out of thin air and about which there was never any consultation.

The result of the examination of the matter by the commission, after the evidence was heard in 1983, was that in July 1983 it was decided that Rust der Winter would not be included in the consolidation of KwaNdebele. I want to emphasise, however, that it was not simply a haphazard decision. A course of consultation, advertising and the hearing of evidence was adopted. When the Government decided to seriously reconsider the inclusion of Rust der Winter, and had decided in principle to do so, it spent 14 days conducting a whole series of consultations before the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning announced, on 25 September 1985, what the decision was.

On 13 September the then Deputy Minister, Mr Wilkens, informed the representative of the Pretoria District Agricultural Union, Professor Viljoen, about this. He informed the KwaNdebele Government about it the next day. The then chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, Mr Tempel, held a meeting in Rust der Winter on 17 September, informing the community of Rust der Winter about it and receiving their reaction. On the evening of 17 September a deputation of objectors from both the Rust der Winter community and organised agriculture—the Warmbaths District Agricultural Union and the Pretoria District Agricultural Union—were given a hearing. That evening I instructed the chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development to re-examine, with some of the officials, the reports of the previous evidence on this matter and carefully to check on all the arguments—because it was a long discussion I had held with the people concerned—raised to express doubt at the inclusion of Rust der Winter, correlating this with the information available at the time.

That morning, after having worked virtually through the night, he reported back to me that he could find no fundamentally new arguments in the discussion we had that afternoon; only the arguments already embodied in the reports of the previous investigation. It was only after this— after we had gathered all this information—that we came back to Parliament and again placed the matter before the Cabinet. The Cabinet then decided to ratify its decision on this matter, and an announcement was made on 25 September.

I want to emphasise that this was not arrogant, sudden or unsympathetic action. It is, in fact, true that technically the possibility was not advertised from scratch with a view to the consideration of representations by sittings of the Commission for Co-operation and Development on the inclusion of Rust der Winter. The reason for that was that it was a matter which, in the opinion of the Cabinet, had previously been given thorough and in-depth attention. Therefore, simply by way of direct consultation, without any advertisement or sittings of the commission, consultations were held in this way with community and farming representatives.

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Cradock pointed out with considerable insight. After the Government’s decision had been taken, representatives of the community of Rust der Winter—I must add that this was, in a certain sense, in conflict with the standpoints of the district agricultural union because in both cases the district agricultural union had opposed the Government’s decision to the very end—held a meeting, as early as December 1985, and consulted with the then Deputy Minister to expedite the implementation of the Government’s resolutions. On 21 April 1986 they formally gave notice, as community representatives, that they accepted the Government’s decision and requested that it be implemented as soon as possible. They are the representatives of the relevant community and of the actual landowners. They represent 70% of the actual landowners.

It is true, however, that officially organised agriculture, the district agricultural union, was of the opinion, in my view in contrast to the majority of the owners, that the Government had acted incorrectly and therefore persevered with their resistance.

I mention these aspects to point out that no high-handed action and, least of all, unilateral action was taken here on the part of the hon the State President. Anyone who works with the hon the State President knows that he is someone who consults more extensively than any head of government has ever done before in the entire history of South Africa. In this case the hon the State President also held proper consultations with his advisers, and before the decision was finally ratified, the overall procedure, extending from 13 September to 25 September, was followed, as I have sketched to you, in order to hold further consultations with the affected parties.

What is now going to be done with this land? As has rightly been said, here it is not simply a matter of extensive farming land, but also one of irrigation land. There are 1 874 ha which have been incorporated into Rust der Winter under the scheme, but according to the water bailiff there are approximately an additional 3 000 ha—therefore 4 874 ha in total. The additional 3 000 ha comprises land which is irrigated from savings which have been effected from people’s irrigation water or from other water to which they have access. Consequently this is land which is suitable for intensive agriculture.

What, therefore, are the reasons why the Government wants to include, for consolidation, this valuable land on which White families have been settled for long periods of time and with a long tradition behind them—something we have a great deal of respect for? I want to point out that this is not the first time that this has happened. It has been the policy for decades now—a policy which hon members on the other side of the House have frequently supported—to incorporate valuable land in such areas for the sake of the efficient geopolitical organisation of the self-governing areas, and therefore to purchase land for that purpose from the White owners.

The first consideration, as stated in the erstwhile notice of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, is that this land should partially serve as replacement land, land which, is under the control of KwaNdebele, at the moment, and which has been assigned to other bodies. There are the examples of the Nebo farms, Geweerfontein, Bloedfontein and Kalkfontein. If one does a bit of arithmetic, one finds this to be slightly less than 2 000 ha more than the land they would be losing. If one calculates this at agricultural value, one finds it to be a very fair exchange.

Secondly, as hon members have mentioned, particularly the hon member Dr Golden, it is necessary to have additional agricultural potential provided for KwaNdebele. The existing agricultural potential is chiefly suited to extensive farming. As far back as the beginning of 1983, as I have mentioned, the then chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development saw the necessity of adding the Rust der Winter area, as an important potentially economic asset to the subsistence potential of KwaNdebele.

A further point is that this asset will not simply be transferred to the government of KwaNdebele on a random basis. It is intended for properly planned intensive farming and the settlement of trained individual commercial farmers on a planned and controlled basis. As far back as 1980 the Government, with the then Minister of Cooperation and Development as its spokesman, stated that in cases of non-tribal land being added to self-governing areas, the Government would ensure that the economic productivity of that land was maintained, and that in cases of sophisticated industries, there would be proper agreements between the South African Government and the government of the relevant self-governing area to ensure the maintenance of the economic value of those farming activities. The hon member for Walvis Bay quoted very fine examples here, pointing out planning reports of the work that had already been done in co-operation with KwaNdebele and that was now being implemented. That is the kind of basic planning which will also be done in regard to this Rust der Winter area. I can given hon members the categoric assurance that the transfer of the Rust der Winter farms will only take place after ensuring that there is a proper agreement for systematically initiating an economic farming enterprise system in those areas.

I also want to mention that one of the successful points in the development of KwaNdebele is the fact that a few hundred thousand people have voluntarily moved into that area. That has led to certain areas, consisting of good agricultural land, particularly maize-farming land, being taken into use for urban settlement. Anyone who has travelled through KwaNdebele knows that large-scale orderly urban settlement has taken place. That extensive urban settlement has made it necessary to establish additional agricultural possibilities there, and in this case also specifically agricultural possibilities requiring a degree of sophistication and management. Proper planning will be done before the area is transferred so as to ensure the maintenance of that sophisticated area.

Also I merely want to state briefly that both the hon member for Witbank and the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis both said that the Government simply kept giving, giving, giving. It has been said: “The NP gives away everything progressively in South Africa.” If, according to the CP’s partition policy, Black people from the existing metropolitan areas have to be resettled in Black areas, surely it must be possible for them to subsist there. It will surely have to be possible for them to subsist there, or else they would all simply return to where they came from. It must be possible for them, economically and industrially, to subsist there.

As far as the hon members of the CP are concerned, I do not know how their minds work. I do not know how they can think that they can bring about the large-scale settlement of people without making it possible for those people to subsist there economically, or must the people simply be piled in there until one day, in some or other manner, money falls into their laps and they can, out of their own pockets, obtain possibilities for their own subsistence, for example by buying up land under these circumstances? It is such a self-destructive argument; it is such an inane argument. It so blatantly undermines one’s credibility that one cannot imagine how those hon members can come to light with such an argument.

On the strength of the snide references, by the hon member for Witbank and the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, to the so-called “imperial presidency” which supposedly manifested itself here, I briefly want to repeat what I said, this was a decision of the whole Cabinet—a properly planned decision on the basis of information and consultation. Insofar as there could have been dissatisfaction about the consultation perhaps not having been technically correct in all respects, in accordance with the agreement with organised agriculture, the standing committee openly gave everyone an opportunity to give evidence. If there was consequently a shortcoming, it was very neatly corrected.

†The hon member for Johannesburg North said that only insolvent people rejoiced about this decision. I think the hon member for Cradock dealt with him very effectively. With the typical arrogance of his party, he again referred to the futility, the sordidness and the discredited nature of homeland government. Why cannot we also acknowledge the considerable measure of progress and success which has been achieved in the self-governing territories? Why must we always try to present the situation there in a ridiculous light?

The hon member mentioned the importance of commuters who have to travel long distances. The acquisition of this kind of economic asset in a homeland such as KwaNdebele is, among other things, calculated to provide more job opportunities for people who now have to commute, so that they can find jobs in their area of residence.

With regard to the hon member’s question about the sending in of valuators I would like to give the assurance that there were two reasons why the department, on my instructions, decided to send in valuators before a formal decision had been taken by Parliament. The first reason was to expedite, at the request of several farmers, the process of valuations since there had been such a long delay of more than a year and a half in the deliberations of the standing committee. The second reason was that we needed certain information about the most recent land values in that area so that we could make more reliable calculations in approaching Treasury for the necessary funds.

I would also like to give the assurance that valuators did not enter the property of persons who were not willing to receive them. Only the properties of people who had asked for the valuators to come in were visited, and I do not think there can be any objection to this approach. In fact, this action was trying to accommodate the insistence on the part of land-owners that the buying-out of their properties should be finalised as soon as possible after the long period of uncertainty as a result of the lengthy negotiations conducted by the standing committee.

*In conclusion just a word of appreciation, too, to my hon colleagues on this side of the House. The hon member for Cradock indicated, with many knowledgeable arguments, what the value of the consolidation of Rust der Winter was. I think that a point that deserves special emphasis is that the result of the consolidation of Rust der Winter is the establishment of meaningful boundaries. One of the problems with many of the self-governing areas is that the boundaries are sometimes problematical, and that leads to conflict situations between communities on opposite sides of the border.

In the case of the Rust der Winter area the boundaries were specifically determined with particular care, with a view to having the smallest possibility for conflict.

I also want to thank the hon member Dr Golden for his specifically thorough analysis of the role which the standing committee played in eliminating every possible vestige of unreasonableness.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon member for Walvis Bay for the tribute he paid to the landowners who have to make sacrifices with a view to consolidation. We all agree with that. I also thank him for his acknowledgement of the good scientific planning that underlies the transfer of land. I therefore feel myself at liberty to move that Recommendation (2) be adopted.

Recommendation (2) put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—81:Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, PG W; Heyns, J H; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, PG; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Meyer, A T; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, P H; Redinger, R E; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanche, J P I; Golden, S G A; Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—30: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; Dalling, D J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Langley, T; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Recommendation (2) agreed to.

House resumed:

Resolutions reported.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—84: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Heyns, J H; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Meyer, A T; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, P H; Redinger, R E; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A J J; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Golden, S G A; Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—30: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Coetzee, H J; Cronje, P C; Dalling, D J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Langley, T; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, it is a fact that the abuse of liquor and the use of drunkenness as a defence is causing concern in society, and it is to be welcomed that at this stage an attempt is being made to set a limit to the use of this defence.

The present Bill—this must be emphasised— does not deprive people, who unwittingly consume substances which have an effect on their faculties, of protection, as has already been explained. However, this Bill now places an important obligation on persons who know that liquor and other substances affect them, to take particular care to avoid committing offences while they are so impaired.

The fact that non-compliance with this obligation now not only removes the defence of a lack of or diminished criminal liability, but can also be regarded as an aggravating circumstance, is in line with the needs of the community. The Official Opposition therefore takes pleasure in supporting this Bill.

The hon member for Roodepoort emphasised the problem of the abuse of liquor in our law and in our society, and I thank the hon member for his support for this measure.

In its present form this measure was agreed to unanimously and without objection by the standing committee. It is a very important measure because it concerns the offences which are committed while a person is under the influence of liquor or drugs.

In the first place it complies with the feelings or demands of the community that if a person consumes liquor or a drug, knowing what its effect is, and he commits a crime or an offence, he should not be cleared of all charges owing to the effect of that liquor or drug. This indicates that the community’s feelings with regard to this matter have hardened and the legislature has put this into effect.

In addition to the first-mentioned aspect this measure contains a further positive aspect. Because the statutory offence is being created, and because it is a competent verdict in the case of every other offence with which a person is charged, this should encourage the sound application of the principles of law. In this case there is no danger that a person can be completely absolved as a result of intoxication and that this may run counter to one’s sense of justice. I take pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, few will quarrel with the legal principle that a person should not be held criminally liable for an act performed by him while he is in a condition in which he cannot appreciate the unlawfulness of his actions. So the mens rea element, or evil intent, should remain an essential element of any criminal offence.

However, if this principle is applied rigidly, it means that a person who commits a crime while under the influence of alcohol, is often in a position to avail himself of the defence that he did not know what he was doing and was therefore not in a position to control his actions.

This is cold comfort to a victim of a crime and it does not contribute towards the protection of the public against dangerous or violent, intoxicated offenders. Alcohol—related crime, very often involving violence of one kind or another, is on the increase and an effective law in this regard can only be welcomed. I am quite sure that our society will support the view that a drunk offender who causes his own intoxication should not be treated more leniently than a person who commits the same offence while he is sober.

This whole question and its ramifications as mentioned by the hon the Minister was thoroughly investigated under Project 49 by the South African Law Commission, and a comprehensive report has been brought out together with draft legislation that has enjoyed the intensive attention of the Standing Committee on Justice. The result is the Bill before us this afternoon.

The detail of the Bill has been very adequately explained by the hon the Minister and was also discussed by the earlier speaker in this debate. I am happy to have played a small part in the formulation of this new law and, on behalf of the PFP, I have pleasure in supporting its passage.

Mr Chairman, we are grateful that the hon member for Sandton supports the Bill before the House.

As has already been mentioned, during the past number of years an increasing number of complaints have been received and the general public has become increasingly opposed to the abuse of liquor, particularly when such abuse frequently gives rise to serious crimes being committed. Feelings probably run even higher when crimes are committed under the influence of drugs. The general public no longer wants to see such crimes go unpunished, irrespective of whether the person who committed the crime was able to recognise the wrongfulness of his action, or act in accordance with this insight. What is important to the community is that a crime has been committed and that the culprit must be punished according to the seriousness of his crime.

To the puritans in the legal profession this approach, which is a deviation from the purely jurisprudential approach, may be a painful experience, but the SA Law Commission also believes that cognisance should be taken of the feelings and the wishes of the community.

Clause 1 of this Bill is therefore also a direct consequence of the recommendations of the Law Commission in this connection, and now makes it possible for any appropriate sentence, except the death penalty, to be imposed, in spite of the lack of ability to understand the unlawfulness of the act or to be behave in accordance with such insight. People who are inclined to misuse liquor excessively, and then commit criminal acts, will therefore be wise in future to behave with greater circumspection if they do not wish to fall foul of the law.

A second aspect which is addressed in this Bill is the question whether the use of alcohol or drugs may be regarded as an aggravating circumstance when a crime has been committed while the perpetrator’s faculties were impaired by such substances. This is an old issue in South African law, and the previous Criminal Procedure Act, Act 56 of 1955, contained a provision in section 350 almost identical to the provision proposed in clause 2 of this Bill. However, the present Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, does not contain an identically worded or similar provision, and one can probably only speculate on the reason for this. The most obvious reason is probably the apparent unwillingness of the courts to regard the abuse of liquor or drugs as an aggravating circumstance. The hand of the court was further strengthened in this regard in that section 350 did not contain an imperative provision, but merely created the possibility of regarding the consumption of liquor or drugs as an aggravating circumstance. Clause 2 does not contain such an imperative provision either, because it is still not the intention in any way to restrict the discretion of the court or to interfere with it. However, in accordance with the feelings of the community an effort is again being made to bring it home to the courts that the abuse of liquor or drugs should not necessarily only be considered a mitigating circumstance but that in appropriate cases the community wants the courts to punish such abusers who are under the influence of drugs or liquor more severely.

Sir, it is a pleasure for me to support this legislation on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the standing committee which showed careful judgment in dealing with this Bill, and actually took a very brave decision. The Standing Committee on Justice must realise one thing—and they do realise it—namely that tremendous criticism is going to be voiced by legal experts. Articles are going to be written about this Bill as never before. The way I know some of our academic legal writers, they will probably refer to the hon members in a very ingenious way as probably being the new generation of legislators, the new generation of Voet and Justinian. I can already envisage that some of them will wonder whether they did not perhaps make a mistake.

In the first place I therefore to say that hon members must realise that they took a brave decision. This decision was taken after they had weighed up the purely jurisprudential position, as set out in the Chretien case, against the sense of justice of the community they represent. This was their choice, and I agree with that choice. I think it was necessary for us to do this.

For the record and for the sake of one of our well-known, until recently still active, chief justices involved in this, namely judge of appeal, Mr Justice Rumpff, we should make it clear that we are not disagreeing with him here because we think he made a mistake in the Chretien verdict. I think we should have it placed on record that we have tremendous appreciation for Mr Justice Rumpff’s jurisprudential contribution to this field which even at that stage, prior to the Chretien verdict, was otherwise vague. That it was vague becomes apparent from the Commission’s findings. Nevertheless a lively debate took place immediately after the Chretien verdict. I am referring, for example, to page 48 where the commission said—hon members must remember this was said at that stage—

As hon members know, “policy approach” means what is considered to be the sense of justice of the community.

I therefore want to point out to hon members that there was even sharp criticism against the verdict of the Appeal Court—it was lively criticism, it was well meant, and it was based on jurisprudential considerations. At that stage it was already apparent that a factor such as the sense of justice of the community may have suffered as a result of the Chretien verdict. However, I want to reiterate, as regards the verdict of Mr Justice Rumpff, that it amounted to the regulation of the legal position at that stage.

For the record and seeing that we have a few minutes at our disposal, I think we should make it clear that the commission—we find this in the relevant report—very clearly differentiated between “involuntary drunkenness”, and “deliberate drunkenness”, with reference to old writers. Involuntary drunkenness means that a person is not to blame for his drunkenness or intoxication. This happens for example when his drinks are doctored, or when he is ignorant of the nature or effect of the drink he is consuming. Perhaps at this stage we should make an appeal to all those students who arrange such “stag parties” from time to time. I think we should make an appeal to the young people and the students who are in the habit of doctoring one another’s drinks and challenging one another to down “depth charges" and similar concoctions. This may just, particularly after this legislation has been incorporated in the Statute Book, cause all manner of problems for such “victims”, because that person will have to prove, so it seems to me, that he became drunk unwittingly, if he were to advance that defence. I therefore want to appeal to all young people to be very careful in this regard in future.

There is also the category of deliberate drunkenness. A person who wants to fortify himself in view of what he wants to do, a person who wants to get “loaded”—the Latin expression is actio libera in causa—falls into this category. That person is looking forward eagerly to the action he has in mind, whatever it may be. In the vernacular we would say that he wanted to give himself a bit of “Dutch courage”. This could lead to his finding himself in trouble in any case. The old writers were agreed that in such cases too, drunkenness was not a defence. From the evidence it appears that it was no defence at all. There is therefore no problem in that regard. The problem area concerned the person who voluntarily had a drink, without ulterior motives and without having a specific objective of a criminal nature in mind, who then committed a crime while in that state. This area caused considerable problems. The question of his guilt and his punishment was at issue, but also the eventual justification for either his guilt or his punishment.

If one takes a look at what writers have to say about this matter, one finds that in, if I remember correctly, the Campher case, the verdicts of judges of appeal Mr Justice Viljoen, Mr Justice Jacobs and Mr Justice Boshoff were analysed. In that analysis the learned writers came to the conclusion that the entire matter of criminal responsibility was in the process of developing and had in fact become an element, like guilt. Contrary to what we were taught in our youth, it is no longer a factor which, once it has been proved, can reduce the punishment. It could also be an element in the determining of the crime. They come to the conclusion that this entire field is a very lively, developing field. I think that if this is the case writers are justified in saying that Parliament actually intervened in this interesting, lively, developing field. Parliament therefore made its own modest contribution, which was actually not all that modest.

To get back to the essence of the Chretien verdict. I have frequently found that this verdict is misunderstood. There is a misconception regarding the effect of this verdict. Many people believed that the mere raising of the defence of drunkenness or intoxication was sufficient to get off scot-free. This is not quite correct and I want it placed on record so that we can show the necessary respect here for Mr Justice Rumpff, who regulated this matter. I want to quote fairly comprehensively from the commission’s report as regards this case. In paragraph 4.4.6, The effect of the defence, the commission said the following:

1. (i) A person who is “smoordronk” (dead drunk) or “papdronk” (incapably drunk) and can only carry out involuntary muscular movements commits no actus reus in the juridical sense of the word, for his acts are not governed by his mind.

There is a further degree of drunkenness:

1. (ii) A person who had imbibed only a small quantity of liquor that had had no noteworthy effect on his mental faculties should be fully punishable.
2. (iii) Between these two extremes lies a large variety of cases where a person had in fact acted in a juridical sense but where the question arises to what extent his inhibitions were diminished. In this case, the learned Chief Justice held, the court should decide the question of criminal capacity. He laid down the following criterion …

When one has to explain the state of our judicial procedure I have frequently quoted this sentence, and it was a revelation to the listener to hear that this was the criterion applied by of Mr Justice Rumpff. His view is so frequently misunderstood and criticised.

Here then is the criterion he laid down:

One has to be extremely intoxicated before one reaches that point, and this also explains why the defence of drunkenness is not accepted in so many cases we know of, such as murder cases. Unfortunately, however, the public does not get to hear about this, because when the Chretien case is resorted to successfully in a few cases and a person goes scot-free or receives a reduced sentence, this is widely reported, but in most cases where it was unsuccessful, this is unfortunately not analysed.

In view of this background and an article which the SA Medical Journal published in 1986, the public began to insist on receiving guidance in very clear language regarding the defence of drunkenness in the case of crimes.

I am referring to a report on the SA Medical Journal’s editorial:

Against this background there was an increasing feeling among the public that steps had to be taken.

Various academics have adopted different views on the matter. One academic made out a very clear case for the shifting of the onus of proof. His argument is that if a person pleads drunkenness as a defence, the onus of proof rests on him.

Another very respected academic in our own judicial circles feels that a Bill such as the one before us is raising the old versari doctrine from the dead. He recognises the need, but suggests another solution.

I am asking all these people to give this new Bill a chance to be applied in practice and then to see how it fares. I personally am full of confidence that the imposers of punishment and the persons who have to return a verdict from the bench, will accept that this Parliament has spoken, on the grounds that Parliament represents public opinion. Although I recognise the total independence of the judiciary, I want to emphasise that whereas it is their task to say what the law is, in this case they will also apply the law as we have indicated it should be applied in this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Minister indicated, this Bill creates an improved procedure for the enforcement of judgements obtained in civil cases in certain designated countries outside the RSA by means of the courts of the RSA. It is clear that this procedure is going to facilitate the work of legal representatives considerably, and in the circumstances the Official Opposition would like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House, I should like to thank the hon member for Roodepoort for his support of this legislation on behalf of the CP.

The legislation before the House today, viz the Enforcement of Foreign Civil Judgments Bill, is another forward step in legal reform and in streamlining our legislation in order to keep up with the changed demands and circumstances of our time.

To begin with I want to say that this legislation is the fruit of the labour of the Bilateral Committee on Juridical Matters of the TBVC countries and the RSA.

This committee was largely responsible for drawing up the legislation under discussion. That in itself, Sir, attests to excellent interstate co-operation.

This Bill as a whole replaces the Reciprocal Enforcement of Civil Judgments Act (Act No 9, 1966) and contains important changes and essential amendments to the existing legislation.

An important new amendment is that in terms of earlier legislation the word “court” referred only to the Supreme Court or the Higher Court of the proclaimed country, and with reference to the Republic it meant a court of the provincial or local sections of the Supreme Court. This definition is being extended in the proposed legislation to include every magistrate’s court, including a regional court of any designated country, and with reference to a court in the Republic, also a magistrate’s court in the district where the person against whom the judgment in question was given resides, carries on business, is employed or owns any movable or immovable property. It is no longer necessary, therefore, to establish jurisdiction by attachment in terms of the present section 30 (bis) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act.

This extension of the jurisdiction makes this legislation more practicable and therefore grants creditors more and more rights and powers.

In essence this legislation contains the same basic concept as the old Reciprocal Enforcement of Civil Judgments Act, but there are also other important beneficial changes and amendments.

The first important amendment is to be found in clause 3 of the Bill. In terms of the earlier legislation, a certified copy of a judgment given against anyone in a proclaimed country had to be sent to the Minister, within a period of six years after the date of that judgment, by the state secretary or the official entrusted with exercising the executive authority in that country. Now it is necessary only for a certified copy of the judgment given against a person by a court in a designated country to be lodged with a clerk of the court in the Republic. Such judgment is then registered in a prescribed manner without any further formalities having to be observed.

The other important amendment is in clause 3, viz that the interest that can be claimed from the date of registration of the judgment until the date of payment is now calculated at a rate prescribed under section 1 (2) of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act, 1975, whereas in the earlier Act it was fixed at an amount of 6% per annum.

Clause 4 (2) of the Bill contains another important provision, viz that a judgment may not be executed before the expiration of 21 days after service of the notice and registration of the judgment. The similar provision in the earlier legislation did not determine any specific period. The new provision is more specific in this respect.

Clause 5 of the Bill determines the grounds on which an application can be submitted by the debtor to have the judgment set aside. The grounds prescribed in the new legislation are basically the same as in the earlier legislation, except that there are three additional and important reasons in the measure under discussion, which ensure once again that no judgment debtor can be detrimentally affected. Once again the doctrine of audi alteram partem is gaining impetus.

One of the most important clauses in the Bill under discussion is clause 8, which provides that once a notice has been issued under section 3 (2)—the date upon which the judgment is registered by the clerk of the court—such registration shall operate as an interdict against the judgment debtor on whom it was served, and against any person having knowledge of such notice, not to remove or dispose of any assets of the judgment debtor if such removal or disposal would prejudice the execution of the judgment. This provision is of great importance and grants the judgment debtor more and more legal security in carrying out his sentence.

This legislation as a whole is another forward step in the sphere of legal renewal, and it complies with the present demands.

It provides for changed circumstances and, especially in view of the fact that there are more and more independent states and neighbouring countries bordering the Republic, it ensures that people who have obtained civil judgments against them cannot evade their obligations.

Herbstein and Van Winsen say the following on page 647 of the third edition of their work The Civil Practice of the Superior Courts in South Africa:

The intention of this legislation is to grant legality and enforceability to the foreign judgment, and on behalf of this side of the House I give it my full support.

Mr Chairman, I would like to congratulate the hon member Mr Van Gend on his most enthusiastic and Messianic support for this very simple piece of legislation.

As far as I am concerned, this Bill does not require lengthy debate. It is intended to simplify and facilitate the procedure for the reciprocal enforcement of civil judgements between the Republic and the TBVC countries. The details of this Bill were agreed upon by the standing committee and I have pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member for Sandton for his support, albeit not as enthusiastic as that of the hon member Mr Van Gend. I would have preferred it if he had been a little more articulate in his support. However, I think Hansard is patient and, once it is printed, his speech will be on record as supporting this legislation.

*The Bill also illustrates that we in Southern Africa, and in particular those states that we are part of South Africa at one stage, are receiving excellent and qualitative development in every possible sphere of life. I want to give the House the assurance that the contributions we receive from the TBVC states are excellent. Recently I had the opportunity to act as chairman. The relevant states each get a turn to appoint the chairman. I can give hon members the assurance that the result is not a one-sided South African point of view, but is in fact the result of very thorough research and consideration on the part of the fellow countries.

We should welcome the fact that the CP did not in any way question the quality of the consultations and of the agreement we reached with these countries. That in itself is a gigantic step which proves that when we move in this sphere, we can develop unanimity as far as quality and the best interests of the administration of justice in general are concerned. One can deduce then that some of their other escapades were not meant as strongly as one had thought.

Before I conclude, I want to mention that the Chamber of Mines requested that this legislation be amended by including a reference to the Protection of Businesses Act, 1978.

This Act places certain restrictions on the enforcement of certain foreign judgments in the Republic of South Africa. We support the representations of the Chamber of Mines, and although I do not want to request that we go into committee to deal with this matter, I beg to mention that we shall arrange that notice be given on the Order Paper of an amendment which will read more or less as follows:

We shall give proper notice of this in due course.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

On 7 March 1985 the hon the State President requested the President’s Council to advise him on the question as to whether the provisions of the Immorality Act were comprehensive and effective enough to deal with the matters referred to in it and also with regard to related matters. The amendments in the Bill emanate mainly from various recommendations by the President’s Council as contained in its ad hoc committee’s report on the Immorality Act.

Judging by recent newspaper reports, as well as the intense discussion the subject elicited in the Standing Committee on Justice—I think I should rather use the word “evoked” because “elicit” may have a double meaning—it would appear that the proposed amendments in clauses 4 and 8, which are aimed at keeping immoral activities at so called “escort agencies” in check, can be said to be the most important amendments. Allow me the opportunity, therefore, to explain these amendments more fully.

In terms of section 12A of the Immorality Act it is an offence for any person who, with intent that any female be unlawfully carnally known by any male, performs any act which is calculated to enable such male to communicate with any such female. In section 21 (4) of the Act as it stands, a presumption is created that an accused had the necessary intent if it is proved that he had reason to believe that the female concerned was a prostitute.

These provisions were inserted in the Immorality Act in 1967, specifically to keep the activities of those escort agencies where immoral acts take place in check. The only difference during that debate was that they were referred to as a kind of friendship club.

In practice, however, it appeared that the provisions in question were inadequate. The State experiences evidential problems on account of the ease with which the presumption can be rebutted, and the requirement that a prosecution may only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney-General gives rise to functional problems. At present the State also has to prove that the accused acted intentionally and any negligent action is not culpable.

In the light of the aforementioned problems section 12A is amended so as to render it an offence for any person, with intent or while he reasonably ought to have foreseen the possibility that any person might have unlawful carnal intercourse or commit an act of indecency with any other person for reward, to perform for reward any act which is calculated to enable such person to communicate with any such other person.

In clause 8 the presumption in section 21 (4) of the Act is also amended so as to ease the State’s burden of proof. Initially there was a strong view that an irrebuttable presumption be inserted, since everybody is unanimous that the immoral activities at certain escort agencies ought, once and for all, to be eliminated. The Standing Committee on Justice grappled with the possibility for a long time. After extensive discussions the committee proposed that it be presumed that the accused had performed the act with the necessary intent or negligence if it were proved that the person with whom communication was made as a result of the act of the accused, was a prostitute or, in fact, had had unlawful carnal intercourse, or had committed an act of indecency with such other person for reward, unless the accused proved the contrary beyond reasonable doubt, which is a considerably more onerous burden of proof. The requirement that the Attorney-General consent to a prosecution is also abolished.

I am of the opinion that the Standing Committee on Justice has once again shown that the tricameral system of Parliament works well, since, after considering several proposals, they have recommended a solution on which consensus was reached and which, in my opinion, addresses the problem adequately.

The further amendments in the Bill briefly comprise the following:

Firstly, the prescribed fines in the Act have not been adjusted since they were placed on the Statute Book in 1957. In clauses 2 (b) and 9 it is proposed that the prescribed fines, on account of the devaluation of the monetary unit, be adjusted in proportion to the general monetary jurisdictional limits of the magistrates’ court. On the recommendation of the President’s Council the prescribed prison sentence of 5 years for contravening section 10 of the Act, namely procurement, is increased to 7 years so as to emphasise the seriousness of this offence in comparison with other offences under the Act.

Secondly, in clause 3 the protection which is at present afforded in terms of section 9 (1) to girls under 18 years of age is extended to children of both sexes. It is also made an offence for the parent or guardian of a child to permit the child to reside in or to frequent a brothel, or to have unlawful carnal intercourse or to commit any immoral or indecent act. At the same time a presumption is also created which amounts to any person having assisted in bringing about the seduction, defilement or prostitution of a child if he has intentionally permitted the child to consort with, or to continue in the employment of, a prostitute or a person with an immoral reputation.

Thirdly, section 14 (1) of the Act is amended by clause 5 so as to make it an offence as well if a female has unlawful carnal intercourse with a girl under 16 years of age, commits an immoral or indecent act with such a girl or a boy under 19 years of age, or entices such a girl or boy to the commission of an immoral or indecent act.

Fourthly, in terms of section 15 of the Act it is an offence if any person has unlawful carnal intercourse or commits any immoral or indecent act with any female idiot or imbecile. In clause 6 provision is made that male idiots and imbeciles also be afforded protection.

Fifthly, according to our courts the offence in section 20 (1) (a) of the Act cannot be committed by the prostitute herself, but only by male or female exploiters of a prostitute who live on the earnings of prostitution. In clause 7 (a) it is not specifically provided that it is an offence for any person to have unlawful carnal intercourse or to commit an act of indecency with any other person for reward. The significance is that it is now an offence for a prostitute to live on her own earnings.

Sixthly, in order to bring the short title of the Act more into line with the content of the Act, it is replaced by the short title: “Sexual Offences Act” which, bearing in mind the unhappy history of one of its previous sections, is a great step into the future.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Official Opposition I should like to say that we support this Bill. We do so mainly because this is a scourge in society which must be eradicated at any cost. I am referring in particular to the question of the escort clubs and what is associated with them.

Another reason for our support of this Bill is the fact that since the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act, there has obviously been a more extensive legitimate market for this kind of presentation of wares, and that is why it is a good thing for appropriate action to be taken.

Obviously we envisage that attempts will be made in due course to circumvent the law, and constant efforts must be made in this connection to institute further amendments in order to clamp down on this scourge.

Despite the fact that the CP supports the legislation, there are two aspects to which I want to refer. An alarming statement was made during a visit to Hillbrow by the hon the Minister of Law and Order last year. I regret that this hon Minister is not present at the moment. According to the newspapers he made the following statement after visiting these places in Hillbrow:

According to the report, that does not bother him, however. It does not bother him! But the drugs do bother him. Imagine, Sir, that the hon the Minister of Law and Order could say it did not bother him! Strangely enough all the newspapers agreed. I assume, therefore, that his words were correctly reported.

In my opinion it is amazing that the hon the Minister of Justice finds it necessary to try to make politics out of this.

Me?

Yes. When the hon the Minister dealt with the matter during the Second Reading, he said:

This matter has as much to do with the tricameral system as the man in the moon. The hon the Minister could just as well have made this reference in the old dispensation. The hon the Minister could just as well have sat under a shady tree and spoken to some experts about this. It has nothing to do with the tricameral system. The hon the Minister was simply trying to make politics of this. It is unnecessary. The legislation under discussion here is not ideological legislation.

It is a pity that it is being used in that way. We test the tricameral system of Parliament when the ideology is at issue, not when we are dealing with legislation that is not ideological. I merely want to say that we think it is a pity that when attempts are made to contribute something in respect of this kind of legislation, attempts are also made to make political capital of it. It is a pity, but it is a fact.

Nevertheless, we support this legislation. We think it is good legislation and we believe it will have a beneficial effect.

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that the hon member for Ermelo, who accused us of politicking, made politics out of this to an even greater extent. He referred among other things to the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act as if that had aggravated this matter, whereas he must know that the fact that section 16 was abolished made more deterrents available than had been the case previously.

He then referred to the tricameral Parliament. It appears that he is very sorry that the leaders of the Coloured and Indian communities agree with us as far as this important matter is concerned. [Interjections.] I do want to tell the hon member, however, that if he wants to attack the hon the Minister of Law and Order about this matter, he should at least ensure that he is here, so that one can hear whether that was in fact what the hon the Minister had said.

Nevertheless I want to thank him for his strong support of this measure.

This is a forceful measure which is aimed in the first place at procurers who practise their profession for financial gain. This side of the House makes no apology for this measure. The fact is that there has been very strong evidence recently to indicate that the so-called escort agencies are really nothing but procuring agencies in another guise.

The President’s Council took cognisance of this trend and recommended that the legislation in this connection be tightened up. That is why the President’s Council recommended that further investigations be made in respect of this matter, and that the legislation be tightened up. No community that wants to maintain Christian standards and wants to survive in the long term can shut its eyes to these morally undermining activities. Prostitution and homosexuality are usually regarded as the first signs of a disintegrating community. I should like to quote what Devlin said, as quoted on page 19 of the President Council’s report—

He then says this important thing:

The Preamble to the Constitution and the Publications Act are proof that the State and this Government have accepted the responsibility of maintaining moral values and standards. That is why the hon the State President referred this matter to the President’s Council.

This measure strengthens the campaign against procuration by increasing punishments, by broadening the required systems to include negligence, and also by facilitating prosecution by presumption. I associate myself with the hon member for Ermelo in saying that if it appears that this measure is not effective in combating this kind of immoral practice, stricter action will have to be considered, and the licensing of this kind of club may have to be reconsidered.

An irrebuttable presumption was included in the original legislation that came before the standing committee, and after protracted consideration the committee came to the conclusion that irrebuttable presumptions are really a contradictio in terminis, a legal concept that we prefer not to include or promote in our system of justice. We decided, therefore, to exclude it from the legislation. However, I should like to support the legislation in its present form.

Mr Chairman, this Bill comes to us in amended form; in other words, it was amended in the standing committee prior to its coming to this House. The amendments to the amending Bill were, in fact, inserted by consensus on the standing committee. There were amendments which failed and which were not accepted into the Bill, but these related only to the monetary penalties in the Bill and do not go to the heart of the legislation. Therefore the non-acceptance of those amendments should not deter support for this Bill.

Both in the explanatory memorandum and in the hon the Minister’s opening speech the detail of the Bill is clearly established. I feel it would be pointless now for me to discuss each provision of the Bill at this stage, having sat for many hours on the standing committee on this very subject. However, when one talks of immorality, of sex, of soliciting, of prostitution and the like, apart from everyone pricking their ears up there is always the argument that the law should not be tightened up at all, but that it should be relaxed, if not abolished completely. This view is bolstered by the fact that worldwide, over a period of hundreds and hundreds of years, no laws have ever succeeded in stamping out prostitution. This argument maintains, therefore, that the unequal struggle should be abandoned. It maintains that prostitution, far from being criminalised, should be legalised and controlled, thus at least ensuring standards of health and so helping the fight against venereal diseases and against AIDS.

If this argument is a dominant one then, of course, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in supporting the Bill before us. However, for many reasons—philosophical, practical and relating to health aspects—I do not subscribe to that philosophy at all. If our country follows the path of the Netherlands, and of some of the European and Far Eastern countries, where laws on these matters are non-existent and the controls are lax, I believe we will be opening a door to national degeneration which we will live to regret. However, if we are in favour of a law which has as its object the protection of society against certain evils, then we should do all that we can to ensure that it is as effective as possible in the circumstances. It is worse than useless to keep a law on the Statute Book which is patently ineffective.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I approach the Bill before us this afternoon. The only aspect of this piece of legislation which might raise the eyebrow of a judicial purist is the creation in the Bill of certain presumptions which will assist the State in combating the commission of certain sexual offences. While the legislator should always be most cautious not to create onerous presumptions which may hinder the proving of innocence of any accused party, I am satisfied that the presumptions set out in this Bill before us, while not being so rigid as to prejudice an innocent person, will materially assist the State in prosecuting prostitution and so on. One must remember that no presumption created is irrebuttable, as has been mentioned by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. Therefore, an accused person who is innocent—in this case one who is suspected of being a pimp or the keeper of a brothel—will not be denied the opportunity of proving his or her innocence.

While on the subject of immorality, allow me very briefly to refer to a matter which has featured prominently in the Press in the past few days. I believe that the State should stop allowing a level of norms to be forced upon the public by a minority of Mother Grundys and of moral cripples. To send the police on the strength of a telephone call, very often an anonymous telephone call—probably from a person suffering from sexual frustrations and hangups—to arrest peaceful yet topless sunbathers at Clifton, is to bring both the law and the police into needless and unwanted ridicule. Real immorality should be distinguished from moral narrowness and dirty-mindedness. Surely the police force has enough to cope with without having to follow up on these ridiculous complaints. In truth, I find the complaints about the topless sunbathers at Clifton more offensive by far than the sunbathers themselves. I am sure that the police would be more than delighted to be relieved of this unpopular and thankless task. With these few words I would like to support the Bill.

Order! The hon member for Roodepoort. I apologize; it is the hon member for Roodeplaat.

Mr Chairman, that is a bit of a problem. People often refer to me as the member for Roodepoort, and politically I find that a little uncomfortable these days. [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon member for Sandton and other hon members of the PFP for their support of this Bill. I am pleased that the hon member made it clear that he did not agree with the trend found in many countries abroad of simply throwing in the towel without making any attempt to maintain moral standards.

I also want to thank the Official Opposition for their support, and tell the hon member for Ermelo that I think this is a case in which the new dispensation works very well. This Bill is before this House today because of a very penetrating report that was published by the President’s Council. Most of the recommendations contained in that report are found in this Bill. I think we can congratulate the ad hoc committee of the President’s Council, which tabled this report in 1985, on the good work they did.

Obviously the maintenance of moral standards is not the duty only of the Government. As we have all said, it is the responsibility of the individual, the church, the family and society as such. If a society were to become permissive, it would be very difficult for a Government to maintain objective norms and standards in any case. This legislation proves that the Government does not merely pay lip service when it announces via the hon Minister of Home Affairs that it wants to pilot a joint campaign to confront the onslaught on our people’s morality.

As the new short title of the principal Act, viz the Sexual Offences Act, indicates, this legislation intends to combat immoral practices more effectively. I do not intend to bore the House with the details of the legislation. This was dealt with comprehensively by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech, and earlier speakers have referred to it. I do want to express congratulations, however, because provision is being made in this legislation for much more forceful punishments for some of these objectionable offences.

I am also pleased that the Act is being amended in such a way that not only the procurer, but also the prostitute, is committing an offence when sex takes place for remuneration. It was wrong for the prostitute to get away with it in the past.

A great fuss has been made about the fact that some of these escort agencies have been licensed by the provinces. It is interesting that the President’s Council specifically recommends licensing in its report, for the simple reason that this enables the Police, who also requested licensing, to exercise better control. If there is no process by which these enterprises have to apply, the necessary conditions cannot be stipulated or the necessary control exercised.

I see that the hon member of the Official Opposition who served on the committee of the President’s Council at the time has also endorsed the report, and therefore has accepted the idea of licensing these massage parlours. People often accuse the Government of sanctioning these irregular practices by doing this, whereas it is in fact an attempt to combat these practices in a better way.

With these few words I should like to associate myself with this legislation, and I thank the Government for doing everything in its power to raise the standards desired by the greater majority of our population by means of this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I immediately want to tell the hon member for Ermelo that if ever there was an innocent paragraph in a speech, it was the paragraph he was referring to when he said I had tried to make politics of the matter.

That particular paragraph read as follows:

I was merely indicating that each House had made a contribution. A motion was submitted on which consensus was reached, and as a result the system worked, because everyone co-operated to find a solution. I was not trying to make politics out of it as the hon member implied, but now that he has given me the idea, I want to do so. If one can be as bitter as the hon member for Ermelo and still agree with the other Houses, the system must be functioning very well. Particularly when a sensitive matter in the interests of the general public is at issue, one can survive one’s bitterness and get over one’s short-sightedness by weighing the greater objectives and interests up against the specific party interests, thus reaching a solution.

I therefore think the hon member was actually doing me a favour by giving me an opportunity to make politics out of this and say that the CP has proved that when the interests of the country need to be served, they co-operate very well in the system. This is to their credit and may mean that if we ever get another opportunity to appear on a political platform with the hon member, we shall be able to pay him the compliment of saying that he co-operates very well with the Indians and the Coloureds. [Interjections.] We find no fault with that.

The hon member did try to make politics out of another point by saying that this legislation was becoming necessary in view of the fact…

I did not say that.

Well, the hon member connected the two by saying that section 16 of the Immorality Act had been abolished, which now provides an opportunity for the wares to be exhibited.

I said there was a greater supply …

… a greater opportunity for the exhibiting or offering of wares.

Purchasable wares!

I understand they talk about wares—merchandise, commodities, etc. I am tempted to add another word, “gewgaw”, but that would probably be inappropriate. [Interjections.]

The hon member is so wrong! He is bitterly wrong about the matter, Sir, because when an Immorality Amendment Bill was first introduced in 1967, the then Minister of Justice gave thorough attention to the whole question of escort clubs. I think, therefore, that the hon member is missing the point completely if that is his argument. I want to refer to Hansard: House of Assembly, 21 April 1967, col 4703, and what follows. I want to make it clear that the then Minister of Justice was very well informed about escort clubs. He said the following:

The word he was looking for was probably “artifices”—

Order! Does the hon member for Ermelo want to put a question?

I merely want to explain, Sir, then we can save a great deal of time.

Sir, the hon member may put a question once I have completed the quotation.

Order! There is no opportunity for an explanation now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The then Minister of Justice said:

I am not trying to imply that the hon member for Ermelo is one of the uninitiated. That is not what I am saying. He definitely did not know about this, however.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

I have not yet completed the quotation, Mr Chairman. The then Minister went on to say:

The then Minister of Justice then said (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 20, col 4705):

As hon members know, this hon member and his other committee members decided to remove that difficult hurdle so that prosecutions could be instituted more easily. They did this for very sound reasons, on the basis of evidence given before the committee, including evidence by the SA Police. This had very good results.

The point I want to make is the following. I shall give the hon member an opportunity to put his question to me in a moment, unless he has decided in the meantime not to put the question. The point I want to make is that this legislation did not become necessary because section 16 of the Immorality Act was abolished.

That is not what I said!

If that is what the hon member was suggesting, or wanted to say, or even think, I want to crush it immediately. [Interjections.] Another point I want to make in order to eliminate any further idea in this respect, which the CP is welcome to emphasise when they decide to include it—it does not matter when; tomorrow, next week, or even in two years’ time—in their pamphlets, is that prosecutions for soliciting have increased in all centres since the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act. Hon members can go and check up on that themselves. It is true. I shall leave it at that, Sir. The hon member can put his question to me now.

Mr Chairman, my question is the following. Before the Immorality Act was abolished, the position was as follows.

The Immorality Act was not abolished! [Interjections.]

Before the Immorality Act was abolished, people who wanted to make use of escort clubs were restricted to their particular race. After the abolition of the Immorality Act …

But the Immorality Act was not abolished! Only section 16 was repealed!

… that restriction no longer applied. No one can be charged for immorality on those grounds any more. This means that the field of operation has increased. The field has increased because immorality … [Interjections.]

But what is the question?

Order! What is the hon member’s question?

Mr Chairman, this is my question. Does the hon the Minister agree that the field of operation has increased since the abolition of the Immorality Act? There was an additional restriction before, not so?

No, Sir, I do not agree with the hon member. I think the hon member could deduce from my reaction that I did not agree with him. The field of operation has not increased. It has remained exactly the same as previously. Perhaps the so-called arts have been extended to some extent. That may be possible. If it is, it has happened across the board. It is definitely not a case of one specific group having extended things for another. Nevertheless, I thank the hon member for his insight. I can see that he is satisfied and that he understands now that the whole issue of escort clubs and so on is as old as the hills. It goes back much further than 1967 in any case.

In addition I want to emphasise that we cannot stop moral degeneration by legislation alone. I think the hon member for Sandton suggested that as well. He regarded the measure under discussion only as a supportive measure; not as a final solution. If I understood him correctly, I think he is quite correct. When these reports and legislation came up the first time, our churches reacted in the same way. Agencies of various church societies and associations reacted in the same way. I am very grateful to all these institutions for realising that when it is a matter of morals and the norms according to which morals are determined, our churches, our schools and all educational bodies are probably the most important bastion or phalanx against moral degeneration. It is when the balance is disturbed and man with all his abilities develops further ploys to evade existing, well-meant legislation, that the legislature has to intervene to restore that balance. However, the legislature can never take the place of those spheres of life which have the task of attending to man’s morals and values in the first place.

I also want to point out that this is not a witch-hunt on escort clubs. Escort clubs which operate bona fide in the true sense of the word will not be affected by this legislation. One thing is certain, however, Sir. Such escort clubs, and particularly their owners and managers, will have to be very careful, because they will have a very weighty onus to discharge if certain alleged conduct takes place, especially in the case of someone who is already known for practising such arts; if, for example, money has been exchanged, and so on. In such a case there is a very weighty onus on the shoulders of the supposed offender.

In conclusion—I want to conclude in a lighter vein—I think Parliament’s main contribution is the endorsement of the fact that pure friendship is still the best thing in this world; something on which we place a very high premium.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this Bill is the result of a thorough investigation by the SA Law Commission into a very difficult subject. Basically they had to try to determine how the views of the First World and the Third World in respect of marriage and the attendant factors correspond. We think the resulting legislation is the best that could be made of a very difficult matter, and it therefore has our full support.

We believe that problems may arise later, but that as matters are viewed at present, this was the best thing that could be done in the circumstances. We support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to have the hon member for Ermelo’s support in connection with this amending Bill.

Whether we want to admit it or not, marriage is just as much of a gamble as any other business contract today, and the reason for implementing the Matrimonial Property Act, No 88 of 1984, was to protect property and to determine the best possible benefits for every kind of marriage. The marital power of the husband is cancelled in all marriages solemnised after 1 November 1984, irrespective of whether the couple was married in community of property or not. Husband and wife now have a joint say over their property.

In the eyes of the law the wife has always been a minor and she could conclude contracts and buy land only with her husband’s permission, especially if she was married in community of property. Even her own possessions were subject to her husband’s decisions. A woman who is not married in community of property, with the exclusion of marital power, can now handle her own affairs and is equal in status to her husband. This does not provide financial protection if a marriage should end in divorce, however. This could also be to the detriment of the wife in the case of death.

The Matrimonial Property Act was not applicable to Black women. To create order and effect a uniform legal system, it is important that the legal consequences of a marriage be the same in respect of all residents of the RSA. The SA Law Commission recommended, therefore, that the Matrimonial Property Act be amended to make it applicable to Black marriages as well. In terms of the Black Administration Act of 1927, Blacks married under common law are automatically married out of community of property, with the retention of the husband’s marital power. It is recommended, therefore, that section 22(6) of the Black Administration Act be abolished so that when Blacks marry, they marry in community of property. If they want to get married out of community of property, they also have to conclude a contract now, just like the Whites.

Customary marriages between Blacks are still recognised, but are not legal because of their polygynous nature. The proposed new section 22(3) of the Black Administration Act provides that a Black man may not enter into a commonlaw marriage if he is still involved in a customary union or unions.

This protects both the wife and her children from a customary marriage. The marriage has to be dissolved first, therefore, except if he wants to enter into a common-law marriage with his customary marriage partner. According to the Matrimonial Property Act, Act 88 of 1984, the accrual system applies automatically if couples are married out of community of property, and hopefully this will also apply to Black couples now. The provisions of this legislation have merit.

They give Black women legal status and more power. Let us be honest. Most Black women in the business world today are executives. They are entitled to control their own affairs. This legislation will also protect women against husbands who may be incompetent administrators. The NP supports this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is very good indeed to have another female member in this House who is concerned about the rights of women and the removal of disabilities. I hope that we will be able to join forces and prove a formidable team in getting the remaining disabilities of women removed in the near future. [Interjections.]

The struggle to remove the legal disabilities of women has advanced in a series of short, sharp rushes in this country with long intervals inbetween, starting way back in 1949 with the appointment of Mr Justice Twentyman Jones’s commission.

I was not on the scene then.

The hon the Minister was not, but I was. I was around albeit not in Parliament. Also I have certainly read some history and maybe the hon the Minister should do so too.

The first real landmark, of course, was Bertha’s Bill, as it was familiarly known or the Matrimonial Affairs Bill that was passed in 1953. I was here at the time; in fact, I made my maiden speech on the introduction of that Bill. That certainly restricted some of the predatory habits of husbands which had been enshrined in law until that time, such as being able to claim their wives’ wages at the factory door and then blowing them at the pub around the corner. Bertha campaigned long and hard to get the rights of women established as far as their own earnings were concerned. She managed that but, I am afraid, not much else was introduced in that Bill.

Parliament saw several private members’ motions during the sixties. Mrs Catherine Taylor, the MP for Wynberg in those days, was very active in that regard. My own private member’s motion in 1975 called on the Government to take immediate steps to remove the remaining legal disabilities of women and to appoint a commission of enquiry to examine the very special disabilities of Black women in South Africa with a view to eliminating them as soon as possible.

Black women in this country suffer from a triple dose of disabilities. They suffer because they are women, they suffer because they are Black and they suffer under tribal law because they are Black women.

In the event, nothing “immediate” emanated from that private member’s motion but the Law Commission commenced investigating marriage laws and we had one or two minor amendments to our matrimonial law in the interim. The Law Commission produced a report and proposed a Bill in 1982. In July 1982 the hon the Minister appointed a select committee on which the hon member for Sandton and myself had the privilege of serving. I must thank the hon member for Sandton for allowing me to be the first speaker on this issue for the PFP but he knows I have a long history of interest in these matters.

He is sulking; he is not here.

He is not sulking; he is very glad indeed that I was able to speak on the matter.

The select committee was appointed, it sat for many months and it was a most interesting experience to watch some of the prejudices of the male members of the select committee gradually erode in the light of very logical arguments which were advanced by the hon member for Sandton and myself.

I must make reference to the chairman of that committee who was of course extremely impartial and very fair in his dealings with members of the committee, and I am sure all of us who sat on that committee remember with pleasure the experience of serving under the chairmanship of that gentleman who shall be nameless in this event.

From that select committee came a report in October 1983, subsequently unfortunately amended by the hon the Minister. He changed a very important recommendation, recommended unanimously in the report, after much argument. I refer to the abolition of the marital power to which the hon member for Edenvale referred, which is such a humiliating disability for married women, many of whom are professional women, traders, teachers, lawyers, and now even MPs, my goodness! It is humiliating for such women, if they are married in community of property with the marital power, to have to refer everything to their husbands, having no contractual powers, etcetera.

The committee recommended that the marital power should be abolished for all marriages, existing marriages as well as future marriages, that is marriages that took place after September 1984 when, I think, the Bill finally became law. The hon the Minister changed it to a recommendation that the marital power be abolished only for marriages entered into after that particular date.

The logic that we used, which I think was unassailable, was that if marital power was bad for future marriages, it was bad for existing marriages, and it should have been abolished altogether. The recommendation would not have affected retrospectively existing contracts per se. Those would still be protected, as would third parties, but contractual capacity would have been given to women would had been married in community of property with the marital power before the passing of the Matrimonial Property Act of 1984. As it is, we are going to have a whole generation of women who will have to die out before we see the end of the marital power.

At least the Bill which was passed in 1984 did bring in important changes for future marriages, and some important changes for existing marriages. However, it happened nine years after my private member’s motion, and 31 years after Bertha’s Bill. One cannot therefore exactly say that the South African Parliament has hastened in its desire to remove the disabilities of women.

Slowly but surely, however, those disabilities have been whittled away. The most significant provision of the Act of 1984 was the scrapping of the insulting marital power in future marriages in community of property, on the introduction of the accrual system, which is a very good system as it gives both spouses a share in accruals to the marriage in the future years. That Act also gave power to the courts to impose a division of the assets in the event of a marriage being dissolved only in cases of divorce.

However, all these goodies which were brought in in 1984 applied, as the hon member has mentioned, only to the marriages of White, Coloured and Asian people. Black people were excluded, the Government saying that it did not want to bring these laws in without consulting the Black people concerned. Obviously that was a very important argument, except that I can remember so many occasions where the Government has introduced Bills which affected Black people without showing the slightest interest in the views of the Black people about those Bills.

In any case, Black marriages were excluded and the subject was referred back to the Law Commission. Now this Bill does away with the major differentiation between Black civil marriages and the civil marriages of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. As mentioned, and I will not repeat it in detail, Black civil marriages are different in that they are out of community of property unless there is a declaration made before a magistrate, either before the marriage or within a month after the marriage. The interesting thing is that even though the marriage is out of community, the marital power is retained.

Black women therefore had the disadvantage of the marital power and did not have the advantage of a marriage in community where at least they would have a half share of the estate if the marriage was dissolved either by death or divorce. So again, they got the worst of both worlds.

That regime is now being changed. We now have this new Bill, the Marriage and Matrimonial Property Law Amendment Bill before the House. By the way, why is it a 1987 Bill? Are we not going to call it an Act of 1988? The Bill that we have been given to examine is a 1987 Bill. I presume a new Bill is going to be printed.

It will have a new number.

Yes, otherwise it is going to be very confusing. The changed regime is, of course, brought about by clause 1 (e) of the Bill which deletes subsection (6) of section 22 of the Black Administration Act of 1927.

All Black civil marriages contracted after this Bill becomes law will fall under the same regime as civil marriages for other races. They will be in community of property and of profit and loss, unless the parties opt for a marriage out of community by way of an ANC. I had better say “ante-nuptual contract”! The mere mention of the ANC in this House is enough to make the hackles rise, hair stand on end and, faces flood with angry expressions!

All these future marriages, in or out of community, will not have the marital power attached to them. That excises the handicap for married Black women, namely the lack of contractual capacity and lack of control over the joint estate.

I concede at once that this is a very significant advance in the cause of women’s rights. I have to repeat the criticism that both my hon colleague from Sandton and myself advanced in the select committee considering the original Marriage and Matrimonial Property Bill in 1983, and that is that the removal of marital power should also have applied to existing marriages as well as marriages contracted after the passing of this Bill.

The other point that I would like to make is that the accrual system will also apply to Black marriages from now on and that, of course, is also a good thing. Like White, Coloured and Indian marriages they can opt into the accrual system if they were married before this Bill is enacted. I think they are given two years which is the same period that was given to married couples of other races to opt into the accrual system. Of course, they can also opt out of the marital power if both spouses agree and they sign a notarial deed. However, I should imagine that difficult as it is for a White woman to persuade her husband who has the marital power to agree to have it changed and removed, so much more difficult is it going to be for a Black woman to persuade her husband to do so with the historical background of male superiority with the Black woman as the perpetual minor, which has now been removed by the KwaZulu law and by the Natal Code. Nevertheless, I think it must still have its psychological influence on Black husbands.

As I have said, the Bill goes a long way to remove some of the legal disabilities, but the disability of being Black and being a woman still remains.

This Bill, like the 1984 Act, fails to deal with two important issues. The one is the plight of the widow whose late husband has not provided for her in his will. She can be totally disinherited if she is married out of community of property. She is protected if she is married in community. Then she will get half the estate. The Law Commission was supposed to be going to examine and make recommendations about the law of succession. What has happened to that?

It has reached a decision.

Oh, really? Why did the hon the Minister not tell me these bits of good news? So we are going to get a change in the law of succession. Women who have been disinherited, women married out of community of property are presumably going to have a right to apply to court for a portion of the assets or the estate. I am delighted to hear that.

Then there is the other question which I do not think we are going to see dealt with this session: The equal guardianship of children. Again the old male chauvinism comes out so quickly. There is joint guardianship of legitimate children. In the case of illegitimate children the woman has all the responsibility and the guardianship. The joint guardianship in the case of legitimate children applies only in one instance, that is, the wife also has to give her permission for a minor child to marry. Otherwise what the husband says goes: Which school the child attends, where they would go for their holidays, what the child may or may not do, whether the child may sign a contract or may enter into an apprenticeship. All those things depend solely on the husband. I know the Law Commission said that not many of these cases came to court. They do not come to court because the disability is generally suffered by women who do not have the means to go to court. Generally they have been deserted by their husbands who disappeared into the blue many years ago. Many questions need the permission of that man still married to this woman. She cannot trace him and there are great difficulties in her getting the necessary authority from the courts to have contracts of service signed and so on. I really think this is a matter that should be looked into.

I must say that I was astonished to read the explanation given by the Law Commission for not recommending equal guardianship between the father and mother of legitimate children. Hon members must listen to what is stated on page 45 of the Law Commission’s 14th annual report of 1986.

I do not have that report in front of me.

The hon the Minister does not have that report. I shall send him one. I quote from that report:

How disgusting! Fancy having an ideology associated with equality of the sexes! This is 1988! What do they think they are talking about! Of course the sexes are equal net only in intelligence, but in their contribution to the economy and in every other possible way. The report says—

For Heaven’s sake!—

Can hon members believe that something like that is accepted in 1988? Wait till I get hold of the members of the commission and I shall tell them what I think of this! [Interjections.] It is quite unbelievable that that should be the only reason. There is no other reason than that it is unthinkable for anybody to have an ideology based on equality of the sexes. Does the hon the Minister of Justice agree with that? Come on, he must say yes or no.

Who has brought all these Bills?

The hon the Minister did not bring all these Bills. He only brought one or two Bills. He must not be so pleased with himself.

[Inaudible.]

Astonishingly enough there was also an improvement for women from Jimmy Kruger!

I shall sit down now saying we are very happy to welcome this Bill. However, we are regretful that the Bill did not go further than it has gone. I look to the hon member for Edenvale to join me in the fight to remove the remaining disabilities of women in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, this Bill concludes a programme that we have been involved in for some time, a programme to reform South Africa’s matrimonial property law. The hon member for Houghton’s cursory historic review gave us a look at the course representations and debates have taken during the past few years.

In the process, however, the hon member mentioned the names of only exceptional people, such as Bertha Solomon. I give her credit for what she said about the 1953 legislation, but the important thing to remember remains that it was NP legislation. The NP also took the initiative in the subsequent development that took place concerning this legislation.

One of the first tasks entrusted to the Law Commission was the revision of matrimonial property law, which started before the eighties, and which has a history of consideration and research over a very long period. It also has a history of various views which had to be reconciled with one another.

When we received the Law Commission’s report at the beginning of the eighties, we submitted it, together with other views in this connection, to a select committee of Parliament for consideration. They came up with a Bill, but it was this NP Government’s policy to recognise the increasingly important role of women in the economy. We were emphatic during the debates at the time that this was an expression of our recognition that women were competing strongly with men to an increasing extent, were occupying their place in the business world, the economy and in the household, and would have to start taking decisions just as important as those taken by the men.

We also took cognisance of the fact that it is no longer a strange phenomenon for the wife to earn the greater income in the home and for the husband to be dependent upon his wife, instead of vice versa. We took cognisance of the worldwide change in the status of women in the economy, and of necessity this had to manifest itself in respect of matrimonial property and marital power.

This brings me to the question of marital power. We said earlier that marital power was the result of an exceptional relationship between husband and wife. They had the choice of dispensing with marital power by means of a contract or of deciding not to do so. This has led to an exceptional hierarchical situation within the family context. We as the Government are not entitled to intervene for the simple reason that in the past the husband took the important decisions about certain matters such as where they would live, and the wife was in the position of a minor in relation to her husband. We have given women more extensive contractual capacity in several other spheres, which has actually diminished the husband’s marital power.

A residue of the husband’s marital power has remained, however, especially with reference to contractual capacity in our courts. We felt that to abolish that all at once would be an invasion on people’s households and would conflict with the hierarchical situation that has come into being. By doing that we might have caused more divorces and unhappiness than we would have contributed to solutions. That is why we did not accept the committee’s recommendations.

We did find a solution, however, by giving parties an opportunity to do away with marital power by means of a notarial agreement. Quite a few contracts have been concluded in this connection.

It is clear that we have to give the Blacks the same opportunity in this new dispensation. If ever this was true for a White couple, it is as true for a Black couple. The Black couple would suddenly have found themselves in a situation in which the husband’s marital power had suddenly been removed, and he would have felt that this Parliament had unilaterally undermined his authority.

In the first place this could have had possible political consequences.

[Inaudible.]

Secondly, as surely as I am here today, we would have been interfering with that marriage. Why do I say that? Statistics have shown that Blacks have been accepting the common-law marriage of the Whites as a form of marriage to an increasing degree. A very interesting statistic is that in 1985, for example, 53 000 Black couples concluded common-law marriages. Under common-law marriages, we understand marriages concluded in terms of the provisions of our marriage laws, and as recognised by our common law, …

[Inaudible.]

… in contrast with the customary union.

[Inaudible.]

Consequently I want to say that having had this trend among the Blacks, it would be unwise to abolish marital power summarily, especially as an act of this Parliament. I think this Government has been wise in doing things in this way. Ultimately the committee acted wisely, because it is interesting that virtually the same select committee of this Parliament served on this joint committee. They did not decide to abolish marital power as they had previously. This joint committee may have developed a collective insight derived from experience, which indicated that at most they had made a recommendation in this connection. I think that at most, the hon member for Houghton made a recommendation in this connection, but it was not taken down in the minutes, because it was her own personal standpoint.

I want to repeat that the earlier standpoint was that marital power should be abolished. The Government decided not to abolish it, but to leave people with a choice. The new joint committee has accepted the view of the Government, as held previously, and there has been no concrete recommendation or an amendment of the Bill to abolish marital power for Blacks.

I think that is a wise decision. I do not want to debate it any further. The fact remains that the hon member for Houghton has made a big contribution in this connection. I do not want to diminish it in any way. What she did not say, however, is that we had a conversation …

Mr Chairman, I have a problem. The clock above you shows that I still have four valuable minutes, whereas the clock behind me indicates that my time has expired. I prefer to follow the clock above your head, Mr Chairman.

You have two minutes left.

I told the hon member that this Government would make all these changes in her time. She did not believe me and said she would not stay here that long. The fact remains that we have done so now. With a few exceptions, we have done what she wanted. I feel we should give her a stimulus and incentive to remain the “mother superior” of the PFP. For that reason I cannot accept her proposal about trusteeship. This should be a further incentive for her to support that party; they cannot get along without her.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Since 1982 in particular, concern has been expressed nationwide about the apparently increasing number of cases of murder, homicide and other crimes committed under the influence of liquor or drugs and that this fact is then adduced as an extenuating circumstance. I therefore requested the SA Law Commission to consider this matter and it was included in the commission’s programme in January 1983. The Law Commission submitted its report to me three years later and recommended certain legislation in this regard.

In its investigation the commission came to the conclusion that the decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South African in 5 V Chretien, 1981, was an accurate interpretation of our modern criminal jurisprudence regarding voluntary drunkenness. The effect of this case is that a person who is charged with a crime requiring intention may successfully plead that he was voluntarily drunk to the point of criminal incapacity at the time of the commission of the offence.

Regarding the application and acceptance of the defence of drunkenness by the courts, the commission inter alia came to the following important conclusions: Firstly, not a single concrete incident could be found where too lenient a punishment had been imposed on a drunken offender. Secondly, although it might appear to laymen that the courts tend to treat the drunken or drugged offender with too much leniency, the courts are merely applying guidelines that have evolved in the process of doing justice to the offender as well as to society.

On the whole the Law Commission was satisfied that the difficult task of imposing appropriate punishment could be left to the courts with confidence.

The above conclusions endorse the confidence in our legal system and its administrators—a confidence which in my opinion is justified and for which every one of us expresses his gratitude.

From comments received by the commission it is clear that the general public is overwhelmingly in favour of severe punishment for the drunken or drug-intoxicated offender. The commission is of the opinion that although very few cases may occur in which the accused is acquitted by reason of intoxication or in which too lenient a punishment is imposed, the mere fact that drunkenness or drug intoxication may result in the acquittal of the accused does not satisfy the sense of justice of society and the present state of our law in this regard consequently calls for legislative intervention.

The commission is further of the opinion that the integrative approach, ie that voluntary drunkenness or drug intoxication certainly constitutes a valid defence, but that judicial effect should be given to society’s disapproval of drunkenness by the creation of an offence of criminal intoxication, adequately reflects the sense of justice of society and is in accordance with the general principles of criminal law.

In order to give effect to the above-mentioned viewpoints, it is recommended in clause 1 that where a person is in such a condition that he does not have the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to act in accordance with that appreciation, and if the said condition was brought about by the voluntary use of intoxicating liquor or drugs and the said person in such condition commits acts which are prohibited by law on penalty, such person should, in spite of the absence of that ability, nevertheless be held legally responsible and be punishable with such penalties as are prescribed by the law in respect of the commission of such acts. The only penalty which is excluded here is the death penalty in those cases where it could otherwise have been imposed.

To illustrate how this provision should work in practice, I can give the following example. Suppose the accused were being tried for murder and during the proceedings successfully raised the defence of voluntary intoxication. In terms of clause 1(1) he would then not be guilty of murder but might be guilty of the statutory offence mentioned in it and any penalty except the death penalty may be imposed.

Mr Chairman, you will note that during its consideration of the Bill the Standing Committee on Justice recommended an important amendment to the Bill by the insertion of a new clause 2. In short this clause entails that whenever it is proved that the faculties of a person convicted of any offence were impaired as a result of the consumption or use of a substance when he committed the offence, the court may, in determining an appropriate sentence, regard the fact that his faculties were so impaired as an aggravating circumstance. I wish to emphasise the word “may” as it lends the courts discretion.

This provision is basically a re-enactment of section 350 of the old Criminal Procedure Act of 1955 and a confirmation of our substantive law. Although the SA Law Commission expressed its opposition to such a provision, the standing committee pointed out that the re-enactment should be a clear indication to our courts that the legislature regarded drunkenness as an aggravating circumstance in appropriate cases. I agree with the committee’s view and accept its proposal. While it will not interfere with the court’s discretion, I am of the opinion that this provision ought to reflect the legislature’s intention that this specific aspect should be emphasised.

Finally, I want to point out that the legislation in question is an important milestone in our law. I know that criticism may be expected because some people think we are deviating from an absolute jurisprudential approach in our criminal law. On the other hand, however, as a result of a thorough investigation it has been shown that society in general supports this legislation and I am of the opinion that it should be given effect.

Mr Chairman, I therefore relinquish my usual and traditional attitude as regards purism in our law in favour of complying with the public request to abandon our traditional jurisprudential attitude here by means of intervention in favour of a stricter enactment against the incidence of drunkenness.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the Bill. The committee had no problem with the principle of the Bill, but felt that a person who commits an offence while he is under the influence of liquor cannot be held responsible for the offence. However, the court can only convict him for one offence. A double offence, where a person committed a robbery but consumed so much liquor that he cannot be held responsible for his deeds, will imply that he is not found guilty now, but is to be punished for one or the other crime. Therefore he should be charged for getting drunk.

The committee felt that a new clause should be brought in. Therefore the Bill, B 119A—87, was amended, and we fully support the Bill, B 31-88, as it now reads.

Mr Chairman, we have no difficulty in supporting the Bill before us today. This would put an end to the Chretien defence which was raised on a number of occasions since 1981 when the judgment was first delivered.

However, I want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to one aspect, viz that the courts “may” consider drunkenness as an aggravating circumstance. This must not be interpreted by our courts to read “shall”. The committee felt that the word to be used was “may” in order not to interfere with the discretion of the courts to mete out an appropriate sentence. After all, it is the duty of the courts to impose a sentence.

The fact that the committee has reflected its concern by including this clause in the Bill should by no means afford the bench licence to inflict harsher punishment. Rather, the courts should consider the term “may” and realise that their discretion is still supreme. With that we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am really amazed at the extremely short debate. I thank the hon member for Northern Cape and the hon member for Border for their support.

I had hoped that we might conduct some debate on the desirability of the supremacy we are according here to the boni mores or “public policy” as it would otherwise be called as regards the pure jurisprudential approach.

From page 48 of the commission’s report its members deal with the situation in which proponents of public justice would obtain the upper hand over those of jurisprudence. They deal with this specifically in the light of the Chretien case. Even during this case in 1981 very strong standpoints emanated from legal writers who leaned to the side of the public view of drunkenness and its role in crime. Consequently this is not something we have recently discovered or snatched out of thin air. At the time doubt already existed as to whether the Chretien verdict satisfied the public sense of justice.

Unfortunately it now falls to me to lend our weight to an approach preferably supporting the boni mores or the public policy or sense of justice of society.

I want to warn hon members that henceforth they will probably be asked in the public Press to defend their standpoint because jurists are likely to attack Parliament on this legislation in legal publications. I predict hon members will have to justify their views and adopt a firm stance. They must not have to ask afterwards whether we have erred. The jurisprudential view is very definite and very pure. There is no room in such a situation for doubters or people who back down because they subsequently think we took the wrong decision. We are taking this decision in the full knowledge that criticism may ensue, but we are doing it because we want to give the public a sign by means of this legislation that we shall not permit the behaviour of people who become drunk voluntarily and then commit a crime to be sanctioned by this Parliament. We want to say it loudly and clearly that they will be subject to the same punishment as a sober person.

As regards the re-enactment of section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is a fact that the committee also took a daring step here, because after the 1955 legislation, which was followed by the new Criminal Procedure Act of the seventies, strong criticism was also voiced against section 250 of these Acts because they would supposedly erode the discretion of the courts—as the hon member for Border indicated.

That was the argument. I said it was unnecessary; it was of no significance. The person imposing punishment has the discretion to do so in any case. In other words he may advance aggravating circumstances when a person has perhaps voluntarily become drunk in the full knowledge that the extra tot or two would produce the euphoria in which he became bold and lost all regard for somebody else’s belongings—and later did not care about somebody else’s life. Consequently this proposed legislation is actually a signal from the side of the legislature that existing provisions in our positive law, which are that a person imposing sentence has wide discretionary powers, can cover all possible aggravating or extenuating circumstances in the imposition of punishment. We are sending out a signal that the person imposing a penalty is to pay specific attention to the question whether drunkenness was a factor and whether it was a case of voluntary drunkenness which resulted in the crime.

In conclusion I wish to offer my heartfelt thanks to Parliament for this very courageous step. Let us see how it will fare. Let us see whether we can strengthen the hands of people who investigate crime—our good colleagues in the police service and in traffic departments, who by the way made an exceptionally serious appeal to us in Cape Town at the end of last year to pay attention to this—and, last but not least, let us see whether we can stand firmly by the view we have adopted.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

This Bill emanates from an investigation of the SA Law Commission into the marriages and customary unions of Black persons, and it makes the Matrimonial Property Act of 1984 applicable to common law marriages of Black persons on the same basis as for the other population groups.

The Law Commission has been involved over a considerable period in reforming the matrimonial property law of the Republic of South Africa. The heterogeneity of our population results in divergent demands and requirements on matrimonial property law which must be addressed in order to satisfy the needs of the community. The solution proposed by the commission is a system of uniform and equitable options for all the population groups, equal in status but with different legal consequences. This is the only way in which the needs of a society can be fully met.

The first step towards this goal was the enactment of the Matrimonial Property Act itself in 1984. Because a thorough investigation of matrimonial property law relating to Black persons would have resulted in undue delay, a separate investigation into the marriages and customary unions of Black persons was instituted. This was done with the full co-operation of Parliament. This investigation resulted in the recommendation of two separate Bills, one relating to common-law marriages and the other to customary unions.

The first Bill which is being considered now aims to eliminate the differences that exist between the common-law marriages of Black persons and non-Black persons, and it is a second step towards this goal. The other Bill contains provisional proposals for the adjustment of customary law relating to marriages and makes provision for the customary union to be recognised as a valid form of marriage alongside the common-law marriage. This represents a third step towards this goal.

In respect of the latter Bill I must point out that this is not being introduced today, because I have requested the Law Commission to consult with the independent and national states to achieve as much uniformity as possible between and amongst respective legislatures in the area of family law.

Mr Chairman, I now return to the Bill under consideration. As hon members are aware, the Black Administration Act of 1927 contains important divergent provisions relating to matrimonial property laws applicable to Black persons. In terms of section 22 (6) of this Act, a common-law marriage concluded by Black persons does not have the ordinary consequences of marriage, ie community of property does not follow by operation of law. If a Black couple wishes their marriage to be in community of property, they may—provided the husband is not a partner in a customary union—within one month before the solemnisation of their common-law marriage, declare before a magistrate or a marriage officer that it is their wish that their marriage be in community of property and of profit and loss, in which case the desired consequences will follow.

The distinction is eliminated by clause 1 (e) of the Bill by the deletion of the subsection in question, and the deletion by clause 4 (a) of the Bill of section 25 (1) of the Matrimonial Property Act. This clause provides that Chapters II and III of the Act are not applicable to marriages of Black persons. This is the crux of the proposed adjustment.

The divergent legal position relating to Black persons was necessitated in the past inter alia to make provision for cases in which the interests of the wife of a previous customary union in terms of the customary law, were in conflict with those of the wife with whom the husband had concluded a common-law marriage. It is interesting to note that the SA Law Commission’s investigation brought to light the fact that despite the divergent provisions, by far the majority of couples make the prescribed declaration and conclude a marriage in community of property. It is not surprising, therefore, that the application of the Matrimonial Property Act enjoyed such wide support during the commission’s investigation.

Since a customary union is not at present recognised as a valid marriage, it is possible for a man in an existing customary union to conclude a common-law marriage with another woman without dissolving that union. This state of affairs is undesirable. It is consequently necessary to provide that a person who is a spouse in an existing customary union will not be competent to conclude a valid common-law marriage. The opposite is already substantive law: A spouse in a common-law marriage is not competent to conclude a valid customary union because this would be in conflict with the monogamous nature of the common-law marriage. This prohibition is contained in clause 1 (b) of the Bill.

Since no problems can arise if the husband and wife, in respect of whom a customary union exists, marry each other if the husband is not already a partner in an existing customary union with another woman, clause 1 (a) of the Bill provides for such an exception. The consequential amendments to give effect to the above are contained in clauses 1 (c) and (d). Clause 1 (f) of the Bill amends the existing section 22 (7) of the Black Administration Act by retaining the protection enjoyed by certain Black women—as a result of the subsection—in marriages concluded before the coming into operation of the legislation.

In order to bring the current reform into line in all respects with the position as it applies to the other population groups, the following amendments are, therefore, also necessary. Firstly, clause 3 amends section 21 of the Matrimonial Property Act by making the choice mechanism, whereby the accrual system is made applicable to a marriage out of community of property, available to Black couples on the same basis as for the other population groups.

Clause 4 amends section 25 of the Matrimonial Property Act by making the choice mechanism, whereby Chapters II and III of the Act in question are made applicable to a marriage, available to Black couples on the same basis as for other population groups.

Clause 2 amends section 7 (3) of the Divorce Act to provide for a legal division of assets in the marriages of Black persons who were married out of community of property before the coming into operation of the proposed legislation.

Clauses 6 and 7 contain consequential amendments to the Deeds Registries Act which are necessary to implement the proposed reform, and to fit in with the current arrangements contained in this Act.

In conclusion, I should like to thank the joint committee which dealt with this Bill under the chairmanship of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.

Mr Chairman, this amending Bill provides that all marriages contracted among Black people be accorded the same status as the marriages of other inhabitants of the RSA.

At present the legal position of a woman subject to the marital power of her spouse is weaker in various respects than that of a minor relating to his guardian. Marital powers place the husband in control of the joint estate as well as the specific property of the woman which is not excluded under marital powers. Expedients in terms of common law afford little protection in cases in which the husband is an incapable administrator. As such a marriage is not valid at present and consequently not recognised, it is possible for the husband to take a second wife while retaining his first. This Bill prohibits a man from doing this and that is why we take pleasure in supporting it.

Sir, the Bill before us elicited a debate on television a few months ago. The opinion of experts participating was that it was an improvement on the existing law.

†It is an improvement which we on this side of the House support fully. In the past a man could have a wife, for argument’s sake in the Transkei, and when he got to Cape Town, he could marry another woman by customary law. In some cases he even had more than one wife in terms of the customary union, which resulted in endless problems upon his death as far as the division of his estate was concerned. We have now identified the problem and, by means of this Bill before us, we hope to cure the problem that was caused, so that all unions between Black and Black will now comply with and be on the same footing as marriages contracted between other parties.

I believe the question of marriages between Muslim and Muslim is being investigated by the SA Law Commission at present and hope that this matter is also expedited so that we can have uniformity in our country and so that those marriages will also be legally recognized in the same way that we are now recognizing and legalising the customary union. I hope that during the course of this year we will pay attention also to that aspect so that there can be complete uniformity.

I will not go into the other consequential amendments, save to say that this is a step in the right direction for South Africa and that it augurs well for a better South Africa, the one we shall have one day when all this discriminatory legislation is done away with. The only bit of discrimination hinted at in this Bill is the repetition in clause 1(c) that—

I also want to refer to clause 1(b) which reads—

That does sound like repetition, but it is meant to clarify and to make certain that no man may marry more that one wife at a time.

In what way is that discriminatory?

It is a discrimination against the man vis-a-vis the female. It is not racial discrimination this time.

Sir, I thank the hon members for North Eastern Cape and Border for their support as well as the standing committee which dealt with the Bill so expeditiously. It is very interesting that Black people have already contracted numerous marriages in accordance with customary law. In 1985 almost 53 000 Black couples contracted common-law marriages as against approximately 70 000 of all other groups. It is very interesting in other words that the other groups jointly exceeded Black marriages contracted in this way by only a few thousand.

Black people for instance contracted far more marriages of this nature than Whites, Coloureds and Asians. The conclusion we may reach is that to a great extent Black people have already moved toward customs which correspond to our common law, such as a monogamous marriage which is preserved according to common-law customs. A transitional phase, which may take place practically without causing a ripple, can therefore be made possible now.

The next hurdle we shall have to surmount is to recognise customary unions after negotiations with the self-governing states and the other states in Southern Africa—especially with the TBVC countries. This is an equally courageous step which I do not want to anticipate, because we do not wish to make negotiations more difficult. It has to result from a joint approach.

The actual question is what we are really doing by recognition of the customary union—and I should like to emphasise this. We are giving the value we accord our common-law union to the customary union. Our common-law union also originated in various forms of action in which the female marriage partner was given to the male and in which a simple symbolic handing over took place. As regards the customary union, we have something more than mere symbolic significance. There is the “lobolo” system and other forms of union. Consequently what we are doing here is to accord to the customary union legal force equal to that of common law.

This has a further important result which is that we shall regulate the consequences of the marriage. Children born of such marriages will be accorded legitimacy and legality so that partners to a marriage or people siring children will accept responsibility for those children. I do not wish to anticipate the matter, however. We regard this as a second step we are taking to regulate and establish marital customs in South Africa. The third step will come later. I merely want to tell the general public that this Parliament is conducting matters most systematically and at an appropriate pace. If one considers the number of years our marital law and customs have taken to develop, it is good to see what rapid strides (rasse skrede) we have taken within a few years. I want to be cautious in not giving the Afrikaans word “rasse” the wrong connotation—we have progressed rapidly!

I am grateful that hon members have given us the opportunity of concluding the next step.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Since the independence of the TBVC states and the establishment of their own judiciaries, judgments of the SA-TBVC courts have been regarded mutually as foreign judgments. Both the Reciprocal Enforcement of Civil Judgments Act and the common law of the SA-TBVC states provide for the enforcement of foreign civil judgments of one state in the territory of another state. The Act has been in force since the respective dates of independence of the TBVC states, but has never been put into operation in either the Republic or any of the states mentioned.

Procedures involved in the Act and common law are time-consuming and costly. There were also other considerations for not putting the Act into operation. The main reasons were the new legal dispensation in the TBVC states and the fact that the original Act made greater provision for unilateral than reciprocal action.

Under common law, foreign judgments can be enforced in the Supreme Court by means of provisional judgment and in the magistrate’s court by means of summons. This procedure is not dependent upon any legislative agreements for the reciprocal enforcement of foreign civil judgments. In terms of the Enforcement of Foreign Civil Judgments Act of 1966, foreign civil judgments have to be directed via diplomatic channels for registration in the courts.

The multilateral technical committee on juridical matters is one of the subcommittees co-ordinating the work and actions of the independent states. This committee appointed a task team to investigate problems regarding current procedure for the reciprocal enforcement of foreign civil judgments between the SA-TBVC states. The task team used the 1966 Act as the basis for negotiation between these states and drafted the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Civil Judgments Bill. This Bill was subsequently accepted by the MTC as a model for uniform legislation in all the SA-TBVC states.

The Reciprocal Enforcement of Civil Judgments Act of 1966 was modelled on the British Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act of 1933. The object of the 1966 Act, according to the then Minister of Justice as appears from his Second Reading speech in the House of Assembly, was not so much to provide for better enforcement of foreign judgments within South Africa but rather to provide that South African judgments in other countries be properly enforced by means of reciprocal enforcement and to protect immigrants to South Africa from other countries in Africa.

Different needs have, however, arisen among the SA-TBVC states since then. The following needs were identified by the task team: Firstly, the procedure involving the use of diplomatic channels as prescribed in the 1966 Act should not be applied in the reciprocal enforcement of civil judgments between SA-TBVC states. Secondly, the registration of such civil judgments should be effected directly by the judgment creditor. Thirdly, all such judgments should be registered by the clerk of the court of the lower courts to save costs and ensure expedition. Fourthly, a registered judgment should be executed as a judgment of the court at which it was registered.

This Bill envisages giving effect to the above-mentioned proposals of the task team. The TBVC states are prepared to enact legislation along similar lines in order to promote uniform legislation in this regard. Only after the enactment of similar legislation by these states will they be designated by notice in the Government Gazette as states of which the judgments may be enforced in the Republic in this way.

Mr Chairman, I just want to ask the hon the Minister a few questions. Firstly, is it intended that the designated countries referred to in clause l(iii) will only be the TBVC countries, or will a country like Zimbabwe also be included as a designated country?

I would also like to find out from the hon the Minister how costs are going to be limited. At the moment we are registering judgments of a foreign country in this country. We hope that we will be afforded the same courtesy of registering judgments obtained in this country in their courts one day. My question is this: Say a person issues a summons and takes judgment in the Transkei, but because the debtor is resident in South Africa, he has the debt registered at the court nearest to where the debtor is to be found. He then carries on with section 65 proceedings which he is entitled to do in the Transkei. Are we now going to say that once a person has registered a debt in South Africa, he cannot subsequently add to it? Or is he going to issue section 65 proceedings? If a man works in East London and resides in Mdantsane, is he now going to be allowed to issue section 65 notices in the Mdantsane court because he resides there? At the same time, is he going to be allowed to issue section 65 notices in a court in the Republic, because he works here? How are we going to protect the poor person from being mulcted in cost? That is the second question I would like to address to the hon the Minister in this regard.

Mr Chairman, barring those two questions this side of the House supports the Bill as envisaged.

Mr Chairman, we have no problem with the Bill because it makes provision for the registration of foreign civil judgments to be effected directly by the judgment creditor and for the registration to take place in the lower courts of the Republic in order to save costs. In such cases the Minister can give notice or withdraw a notice in the Gazette.

Mr Chairman, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I just have a vague idea that the hon member for Border is still practising law, because this problem he has posed to me is of a very practical nature; it is not something which he has just thought up to make things difficult for me. I think it is a genuine problem which he envisages encountering. Since I have said that, and since the hon member is a practitioner, may I ask him, Mr Chairman, whether he will pay my account if I now advise him fully on this issue? [Interjections.]

The answers to the problems the hon member for Border posed are all to be found in the Bill itself. Clause l(iii) states that “designated country” means a country designated under section 2 (1). Section 2 (1) does not limit the Minister to declaring only the TBVC countries as designated countries or countries to which the Bill will apply. We are not limited to only those countries. Therefore, all other things being equal and everything being said mutatis mutandis, the Bill will obviously apply to any other country with which we can reach reciprocity, because that is the key word. Reciprocity will have to be the result of negotiation, because the other country will have to legislate and make provisions for reciprocity through its parliament, otherwise this Bill cannot be operative.

The first answer therefore is that perhaps, next time he travels overseas or in Africa, the hon member may act as our ambassador without pay and perhaps improve on the situation which exists now, viz that it is an action that will follow only between ourselves and other countries in the SA-TBVC group and among these countries themselves.

As to the question whether any subsequent proceedings may be instituted once a judgment has been registered, the answer is yes, naturally. Once a judgment becomes the judgment of a court through the clerk of the court—hon members should please note, the clerk of the court— the remainder of the civil processes that are available in any of these countries which, incidentally, are on a par with South Africa, will apply. In other words the proceedings will follow, writ may be issued and the procedure in terms of section 65 may be instituted.

However, it is a very interesting question which the hon member has posed. It presupposes that a similar process may be conducted against a judgment debtor in the country of origin. Suppose the section 65 costs amount to Rx, may they be added? No, Sir, I do not see it that way. In terms of clause 1 (iv) of the Bill “judgment” means “any final judgment or order for the payment of money, given or made before or after the commencement of this Act by any court in any civil proceedings or in respect of compensational damages…." Therefore, the court of origin will have to make a further judgment.

The hon member knows it is possible to have an extract of judgment. The way I see it the court at which it all originates will have to give a further judgment on costs which will have to be added by way of a fresh registration. We, like any other country, cannot continue to be burdened by costs which are incurred indiscriminately.

Secondly, I think there is also a problem as to whether proceedings can be conducted at the same time in different courts. Suppose the judgment debt is recovered in one court, what is the case in the others? I think it will then be possible for a judgment debtor to make an application to the court for proceedings to be suspended until such time as the matter has been considered in the court of law at which it originated.

It is also possible that the judgment may be rescinded in one country. What then is the position in the other country? On this basis alone I would advise against the running of two cases in two different courts at the same time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The aim of the Bill is to effect the increase of certain fines, to establish additional grounds for declaring a member unfit to remain in the Force, the further clarification of the position of officers who have been found guilty of misconduct and to make provision for the summary discharge of an officer under certain circumstances. In addition, the Minister’s powers to make regulations are extended and certain textual improvements made.

†Clause 1 amends the English text of the Police Act in order to bring the wording thereof in line with the rest of the Act.

The maximum fines which may be imposed upon a member for contravening the provisions of the Police Act, which includes the regulations, are increased as follows: In the event of a member of the Force being found guilty by a civilian court, from R200 to R300; in the event of a member of the Force, who is not an officer, being found guilty by a trial officer, from R50 to R100; and in the event of an officer the Minister may in future, on the recommendation of a board of inquiry, impose a maximum fine of R300 instead of R200.

The previous adjustment in respect of fines occurred in 1977 and 1984 respectively. The necessity for frequent adjustments is self-evident.

Clause 3 (a) firstly amends the Police Act by deleting the words “pursuant to a request under subsection (1) or to the board”. No provision is made in the Act for such a request and the reference thereto is superfluous. The point in time when the Commissioner may authorise the finalisation of the board of inquiry without hearing evidence on the merits, is stated more clearly. This shortened procedure is in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 (Act No 51 of 1977) and will only be applicable if the officer charged admits the misconduct.

Clause 3 (b) extends the rights of an officer, who has been found guilty of misconduct, to lodge written representations to the Minister. Whereas previously such officer could only lodge representations in respect of the imposition of punishment, he may now lodge representations in respect of any recommendations by the board or the Commissioner, made in terms of subsection 10 (6C).

I now turn to clause 3 (c). In terms of subsection 10 (6A) of the Police Act the Commissioner may at present make recommendations to the Minister only in respect of the imposition of punishment. As a result of this limitation the Commissioner is not entitled to comment on the findings of the board. This amendment will empower the Commissioner to make recommendations to the Minister in respect of a finding or recommendation of the board. A clear textual distinction is also drawn between the powers of the board and those of the Commissioner.

That brings me to clause 3 (d). In order to make a just finding with regard to the officer’s guilt and to impose a suitable punishment, it is necessary for the Minister to have as much information at his disposal as is possible. The Minister has now been given the power to consider the board’s and the Commissioner’s reply following the officer’s appeal and representations. Furthermore, the common-law grounds which give rise to the setting aside of the board’s finding by the Minister are incorporated in the Act.

Lastly, clause 3 envisages a number of self-explanatory linguistic alterations.

*By means of clause 4 the grounds for summary dismissal by the Commissioner of members with less than 12 months’ service in the Force are extended in that such dismissal may now also be effected “on account of any conduct which is prejudicial to the good order, efficient administration, control or discipline of the Force”. Past experience has shown that the present grounds are insufficient in that certain forms of unacceptable conduct could not be brought within the ambit of the existing grounds.

The community demands the utmost integrity and responsibility from members of the Force. The South African Police Force has to ensure that members have these characteristics and is therefore obliged to evaluate new members and to dismiss those found to be unacceptable.

It is worthy of mention that a member whose services have been terminated by the Commissioner in terms of section 17 (1A) (2) may appeal to the Minister against such dismissal.

In clause 5 section 17A is similar to section 17 (1A) (a) of the Act which provides for the summary dismissal of a non-commissioned member serving a term of imprisonment without the option of a fine, the only difference being that a commissioned officer may not be discharged by the Commissioner but by the Minister. A board of inquiry would therefore not be a prerequisite for the dismissal of a commissioned officer serving a term of imprisonment without the option of a fine.

In clause 6 the Minister’s powers to make regulations with regard to appeals are extended by subsection 33 (1) (j) to include representations with regard to recommendations by the board.

The wider powers granted to the Minister are a consequence of clause 3 (b), which extends the right of an officer, who has been charged, to make representations.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no difficulty in supporting the hon the Minister on this legislation. On the occasion of his first appearance in the House this year I am sure hon members of the House—and also of the standing committee—would want to congratulate the Police on its 75th anniversary. I hope its members will enter into the spirit of the festivities and experience a spirit of reform in the new South Africa. I hope not a single festive occasion will take place on a beach because that would probably occasion problems again. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we could perhaps take a swim at a place where it would be quite safe not to fall into political traps—but there might be a few sharks.

Order! The hon member must revert to the Bill.

Sir, there is a further matter I should like to address. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to use the entire Police Force in the search for the murderer of innocent children on the Cape Flats. I should like to appeal to the public not to act too hastily toward any suspect person because this could lead to unmerited assault or even death.

I wish to request the hon the Minister to have this case solved as soon as possible as our people are terrified. You know, Sir, we do not live in the best of areas—neither are our schools situated in such areas. This creates great uncertainty and fear among parents who work by day and have to leave their children to their own devices.

The legislation before us today is a challenge to the Police.

The hon the Minister said at the beginning of last year that he accepted the challenge to develop the image of the Police. The image of the Police is also important in the development of good relations. The hon the Minister kept his promise in this respect by tabling legislation in respect of the development of the Force. The hon the Minister has set standards for his Force through this legislation; he has set norms regarding the execution of Police duties and the right of the public to have confidence in its members.

Adjustments included in the legislation are largely textual improvements—as the hon the Minister said. Nevertheless the standing committee was fully aware that no policeman’s right to appeal would suffer in any way and that a policeman charged in terms of this legislation would have the right to put his case by means of the normal procedure of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The increase in fines from R200 to R300 is trifling by today’s monetary values. It is merely an adjustment to take the decline in the real value of money into account.

The legislation now also provides for members with or without the rank of an officer. I think this testifies to some degree to the elimination of discrimination in the Police Force. A good policeman is not known by his rank, but merely by the fact that he is a policeman. I do not believe that different rules should apply to the action taken by or the conduct of a policeman, so I am pleased that this legislation ensures that a policeman cannot abuse his rank.

This legislation does not provide for special protection for policemen when emergency measures are in force and ordinary legislation regarding the conduct of policemen will still apply at all times. A policeman is therefore not immune when abusing his power in the execution of his duties. That is why I say this Bill is a challenge to the Police.

The Board of Inquiry is being cancelled because by means of this legislation we are moving closer to the procedures followed in departmental investigations. In this regard procedures applying to magistrates will also be supplemented.

I regard the legislation as a further extension of the challenge to clean up the Police Force as it provides for more effective action than the mere investigations conducted in the past. The Commissioner may now take immediate action upon only an admission of guilt made by the accused. This assists us in clearing the image of the Police immediately if any transgressions take place.

I like this Bill as it furnishes the opportunity for a cleaning up process in which young men, or any member of the public joining the Force, will now be on temporary appointment to the Police for 12 months. I do not believe one can apply any process to screen people adequately to ensure they are suited to the service and the new circumstances. South Africa is experiencing a time of change and one in which we also have to apply our laws in the spirit of change. Many of our population groups are still struggling to regularise their own relations, not only as regards the law or the Force but as regards other groups. This amending Bill provides the Police with a cleaning up period of 12 months in which it can ensure that its members are the right people to face the spirit of change and the application of the law. In this spirit of change it is important for the Police to be relieved of any people who cannot adapt to the process of change. The Police—other ranks and officers—should always, wherever they are, act in such a way that they place the Force above suspicion. This is why I am very pleased that the hon the Minister decided to insert a clause to the effect that, in the case of suspicion falling on any member of his Force, he assured the public he would take steps—in the interests of law and order as well as in the interests of the Force itself.

Sir, I want to emphasise that we on this side of the House are advocates of law and order. Sometimes we subject the hon the Minister to a low tackle and sometimes to a high one, but he should know at all times that we are champions of law and order. If the hon member for Mamre I see sitting there had had an “Afro”, I would have said to the hon the Minister, “There he is!”.

Order! What does the hon member mean by an “Afro”?

It is a big “Afro” head.

Order! What is an “Afro”?

I shall explain to you later what an “Afro” is.

Order! Would the hon member explain now what he means by an “Afro”.

It is someone who grows his hair long and, if one takes a look at the hon member for Mamre and another at the picture in Rapport, he is the spitting image of the wanted person. [Interjections.]

On a point of order: The hon member for Border is being facetious about a very serious matter.

Order! I cannot permit the hon member to make a speech. I have already asked the hon member for Border what he meant and he did not refer specifically to the hon member for Mamre; he quoted Rapport.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon member said “the hon member for Mamre”. He specifically used my name.

Order! Did the hon member for Border refer directly to the hon member for Mamre?

I said it was a pity the hon memtier for Mamre did not have an “Afro” and then referred to the report in Rapport. If the hon member had listened, he would have known that we had raised the matter of the creature who is to be apprehended here in the Cape Colony as early as last Wednesday.

I want to put a question to the hon the Minister which I also asked the chairman of the standing committee. When I put the question to the chairman in the standing committee, he said it was unfair to put that question to the officials. I want to refer to clause 4 which is an extension of section 17. I want to know whether the insertion of the words—and I quote—

is a short cut to clamping down on AWB members in the Force? In the past an entire process was instituted against any officer but the process has now been curtailed and I want to know whether the insertion is intended to clamp down on AWB members in the Force. The hon member for Mamre has covered the amending Bill thoroughly and we on this side of the House support it as well.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I wish to express my thanks to hon members of this House serving on the standing committee for dealing expeditiously with this Bill we submitted to them. We appreciate this. I should also like to express my gratitude to the members of the standing committee and hon members of the House for their understanding of the necessity for the Bill—we have explained in the memorandum why we consider it essential. I also thank them for the assistance they afforded me in solving this problem. I really appreciate this.

I want to thank the hon member for Mamre, who is a senior member of the standing committee and of this House, and his party for their support of this legislation. In addition I want to say he made a very positive contribution here this afternoon for which I am greatly indebted to him. On listening to him, it became clear to me that he had made a thorough study of the Bill; he knows what it involves and I should like to thank him for this.

I should also like to thank the hon member for Border for his support as well as for the assurance he gave us. You know, Sir, at this time we all support law and order en bloc and I wish to thank the hon member for that specific phrase, as well as for his support of the Bill.

The hon member asked whether the provision in clause 4 of the Bill was aimed at clamping down on members of the AWB. Our standpoint on this matter is very clear. I have voiced it repeatedly but take pleasure in doing so once again: We of the Force do not tolerate radicals—not to the left nor to the right. Our Force—I associate myself with what the hon member for Mamre said—has a motto: “We protect and we serve”. That is our guideline and objective. We attempt to put it into practice. Consequently if there are members or factions in the Force—hon members should bear in mind we are merely people—who lean to the left or right and do not wish to exemplify this motto, they will have difficulties with us. They will encounter problems with me, the Commissioner of Police, and the Force, because this is not tolerated in the Force. Consequently if someone who is a member of the AWB or a leftist organisation like the UDF contravenes this provision, we shall take steps against him. I should like to read the provision aloud again:

If someone in the Force acts in such a way—it makes no difference whether he is a member of the AWB, the UDF or merely an ordinary member of the Force—we shall take steps against him in terms of this provision. This does not apply only to AWB members; it applies to any member contravening this provision. I should like to give the hon member for Border this assurance.

I also wish to thank the hon member for Mamre for his congratulations on the festivities marking the 75th anniversary of the SAP. This is a great year for us. We were desolate when we lost that group of men in that road accident in this specific year but I thank the hon member heartily for his congratulations in this regard.

The hon member for Mamre then requested me to make every effort to apprehend the murderer of children on the Cape Flats. I should like to assure hon members this afternoon that we regard this matter in an extremely serious light. We consider it one of our greatest possible priorities. We have appointed a team of detectives which is working on this case day and night to see whether we cannot take this man into custody. I also take pleasure in supporting the hon member for Mamre’s appeal that we should be careful not to become involved in vigilante action here. One can understand people’s feeling emotional about this case. Children are important and we understand this. Nevertheless I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Mamre and repeat that parents and members of the public should refrain from becoming involved in a type of vigilante action. This could only cause more trouble and distress. That is why I appeal to parents and the public rather to help us by keeping their eyes and ears open and informing us if they obtain any indication of information which could assist us in this regard. We are prepared, and shall follow it up as soon as possible, because I want to repeat we shall leave no stone unturned in apprehending this malefactor.

We shall try to bring him to book as soon as possible. I want to assure hon members and the public that we are according this matter the highest priority. We shall seek him out. The SA Police is the best in the world and we shall truly attempt to arrest this man as soon as possible.

Order! Did the hon member for Border say the wanted man looked just like the hon member for Mamre?

I am not sure of what I said. I shall look in Hansard and rectify matters if that proves necessary.

Order! I shall also look in Hansard because I should like the matter corrected. If it is wrong, I shall put the matter right tomorrow.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The State Land Disposal Act of 1961 empowers the hon the State President to sell, exchange, donate or lease State land. The Act also provides that the State President may assign this power, inter alia, to the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs. Such assignment has indeed been done and in terms of the Act, the powers have been further delegated to the officials in the service of the State.

*The Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, has added a further dimension to the matter, however. In terms of paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to that Act an own affairs administration is responsible for inter alia the disposal of State land which vests in it. This power of disposal is subject to any general law pertaining to the disposal of State land and since the State Land Disposal Act, 1961, is such a general law, the own affairs administrations are bound by its provisions. This is a sound arrangement which cannot be faulted.

There is a shortcoming however. While it is possible for the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs to delegate powers of disposal under the Act to officials of an own affairs administration, it is not possible for the State President to assign his powers under the Act to a member of a Ministers’ Council. This state of affairs obviously creates problems and the various own affairs administrations have requested that the principal Act be suitably amended to provide that the relevant member of the Ministers’ Council entrusted with land affairs can receive powers under the Act from the State President.

The Bill now under consideration therefore provides for the extension of the definition of “Minister” in order to include a member of a Ministers’ Council to whom the administration of land affairs has been assigned. It will then be possible to assign powers under the Act to that member. The various Ministers’ Councils are in agreement with the proposed amendment.

Mr Chairman, when this amending Bill came before the standing committee, it was the first time we had to vote on a Bill, because it rankled somewhat. Hon members sometimes become a bit tetchy when legislation on own affairs is being discussed.

It is ironic that this amending Bill should be before this House today; ironic, because the ruling party in this House so often boasts that they have been responsible for removing apartheid legislation from the Statute Book. It is even more ironic, because the LP wants to create the impression among the public that effectively they are the NP’s opposition.

Is that really the case?

What does the State Land Disposal Amendment Bill really amount to? To me it seems to be nothing but an extension of the concept of own affairs. Although much is made of the effectiveness of the governing party in this House, we know that the NP is concentrating on own affairs. Is the support in this House for this own affairs Bill so unexpected, or is there an ulterior motive?

What does this Bill really mean? We note that the definition of “Minister” is substituted by the definition “Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs”, but in connection with—I quote the following:

Sir, does this not amount to an extension of this concept of own affairs? Just look at how we in this House pride ourselves on contributing to the abolition of apartheid legislation, yet here we are once again extending an own affairs concept. We cannot speak with two voices in this House. We cannot say we are abolishing apartheid legislation on the one hand, and then ask for an extension of own affairs in order to protect ourselves on the other.

I do not think that we on this side of the House can support this amending Bill. I therefore have no choice but to move as an amendment:

Mr Chairman, it seems a pity that the hon member for Outeniqua has interpreted this Bill in this way. We on this side, I believe, are politically responsible, and because we are politically responsible we must see things without wearing blinkers all the time.

In terms of section 26 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983 (Act 110 of 1983), the State President can transfer powers to Ministers, in this case the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs, but the State President cannot transfer powers to Ministers of own affairs, and this is an own affair, as the hon member correctly pointed out. The State President is therefore bound by the provisions of the State Land Disposal Act of 1961 when he disposes of State land. In terms of the definition of “Minister” in the old Act, however, a member of a Ministers’ Council entrusted with the administration of land affairs has no powers under the Act. The Bill therefore provides that the definition of “Minister” be extended to include a member of a Ministers’ Council to whom the administration of land affairs of the population group in question has been assigned. This will enable the various own affairs administrations to deal with State land vested in such administrations.

For a very long time land issues have been very sensitive issues, especially in this House and among our people. In this Chamber one has often heard the emotional debates and discussions that have taken place on this issue. We do not want land proclaimed under the Group Areas Act. At present officials of the Department of Public Works handle the disposal of land. Because the decision still rests with the Minister of Public Works, whenever questions are asked about the disposal of State land by own affairs Ministers, it appears that the officials are not accountable to our Ministry in the House of Representatives.

Land costs are very high. Cases have been quoted where urban property for the White community has been acquired for R8 000 per hectare and for other groups up to R23 000 per hectare. In the Cape Peninsula especially, we alone have a backlog of 45 000 houses, and if we cannot find the necessary land at affordable prices, I am afraid we will have an even greater backlog.

Mr Chairman, let me just say that, as was mentioned by the hon the Minister, all three administrations have requested this amendment, and we on this side of the House have categorically stated our abhorrence of the Group Areas Act, but after a lengthy debate our political responsibility had to hold sway in this matter and therefore we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Outeniqua had nothing to say for himself during standing committee meetings.

Mr Chairman, I object to that statement.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is misleading the House, because I made a contribution during the standing committee’s discussions.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Sir, when we discuss group areas and apartheid, the hon member should be the last one to complain, because he obtained a permit for his business in terms of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

This Bill seeks to extend the definition of the “Minister” entrusted with the administration of land affairs so that the Ministers in the Ministers’ Councils entrusted with the administration of land affairs will also be able to exercise powers in terms of the State Land Disposal Act, 1961.

This Act authorises the State President to dispose of State land and further provides for the State President to assign this authority to the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs. This means that this authority can be delegated to officials in his department, as well as officials in other State departments, including officials in the department in the Administration: House of Representatives for example. The present definition in the principal Act does not provide for the State President to assign powers to the relevant Ministers in the Ministers’ Councils. In practice this means that these Ministers have no powers in terms of the Act. The proposed amendment remedies this shortcoming. In fact, the Constitution provides that own affairs administrations must deal with State land under their jurisdiction. It is merely the definition of “Minister” in the State Land Disposal Act, therefore, that prevents the relevant Ministers in the Ministers’ Councils from dealing with State land in terms of that Act. The Bill does not seek to incorporate any new principle, but rather to make a practical rectification. We on this side of the House also support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Outeniqua was actually opposing the concept of “own affairs” and he said we were extending a matter which he did not really support. What this hon member supports and what is applicable, differ quite considerably, however. At present the Constitution makes provision for things such as these. This amending Bill merely seeks to streamline the Act and to make it more practicable. If the hon member has any problems with the concept of own affairs, it is a totally different matter which has to be debated at another time and in another place.

[]fM should like to thank the hon member for Retreat for supporting this Bill. He pointed out that the objective was to streamline a concept which had been approved by all three Houses.

Approved by all three Houses?

Yes, the concept of own affairs according to our Constitution. [Interjections.]

*I should also like to thank the hon member for Wuppertal for his contribution. He in fact provided a broad motivation for the changes we want to make today. I should also like to point out that this Act is subject to a general Act.

Has the concept of own affairs been approved?

The concept of own affairs has been approved by all three Houses. In terms of our Constitution it has been approved.

*I want to thank the hon member for Wuppertal. He provided a really broad outline of the motivation for the change we want to make today. I also want to point out that it is clear that this legislation is also subject to a general Act.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister does not know what he is talking about. This party resolved that it would participate, but it does not approve the Constitution as such. The hon the Deputy Minister must therefore correct himself so that it can be recorded in Hansard, because it could be a reflection on this House.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Finally I want to add that this legislation is subject to a general Act. Steps taken under own affairs will also be subject to the general Act.

I thank hon members for supporting this legislation.

Question agreed to and amendment dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Town and Regional Planners Act, 1984, makes provision for the establishment of a South African Council for Town and Regional Planners which will be responsible for the registration of town and regional planners and the institution of measures for the enhancement of the profession. The Act also stipulates that it shall be an offence for a person not registered as a town and regional planner to pretend to be or by any means whatsoever to pass himself off as a town and regional planner or to use any name, title, description or symbol which may infer that he is registered as such.

This provision creates problems for a professional land surveyor who, before the implementation of the Act, performed township planning and now does not qualify to be registered as a town and regional planner. Although no reservation of work for town and regional planners has taken place as yet, the prohibition on the use by an unregistered person of any name or title which may infer that he performs such work, is very effective. For instance, a professional land surveyor who is not registered as a town and regional planner makes himself liable for prosecution if he creates the impression that he is registered as a town and regional planner. He cannot make it known in any manner that he is competent to perform work in township planning.

This state of affairs causes dissatisfaction amongst professional land surveyors, and after in-depth discussions between the South African Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors and the South African Council for Town and Regional Planners, a solution to the problem was found.

*Provision is being made for a professional land surveyor to do township planning and use the title “township planner” on condition that he obtains the approval of the South African Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors. That council will see to it that only competent land surveyors who have the necessary qualifications and experience to do township planning are authorized as such.

Authorizations thus granted are also subject to the condition that no land surveyor may perform any work which has been reserved for town and regional planners in terms of the Town and Regional Planners Act, 1984. Professional land surveyors who do not qualify to be registered as town and regional planners or who do not wish to be registered as such, are therefore accommodated and will be able to continue to perform work in township planning which they competently performed in the past.

At the same time the profession of town and regional planner is not being prejudiced. Since the proposed amendment is at the request of both the South African Council for Town and Regional Planners and the South African Council for Professional Land Surveyors, I have pleasure in submitting it for consideration.

The other amendments contained in the Bill aim at the substitution of an obsolete definition of “Minister”, the rectification of a printing error in the Town and Regional Planners Amendment Act, 1987, and the substitution of the reference to the Land Surveyors’ Registration Act, 1950, which has been repealed, with a reference to the Professional Land Surveyors’ and Technical Surveyors’ Act, 1984.

Mr Chairman, in the previous Bill that we dealt with, the definition of “Minister” was broadened to incorporate the definition contained in clause 1(b), viz in respect of “land referred to in paragraph 13 of Schedule 1” of the Constitution. Now, in terms of this particular Bill, the definition of “Minister” is being amended to read “only the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs”. My question now is: Will town and regional planners not be concerned with it? Will this duty be delegated to the relevant Minister of Own Affairs in the three different Houses? Why does the definition of “Minister” include only the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs, whereas in the previous Bill—clause 1(b)—the definition of “Minister” was broadened to include a reference to “land referred to in paragraph 13”? Why is there that difference?

Mr Chairman, I shall give the answer to that in my reply at the end of this debate.

Mr Chairman, there is something I wish to ask the hon the Deputy Minister. At least in previous years we received copies of his Second Reading speeches. It seems, however, that there is less and less co-operation these days. After all, I am the Chairman of the Standing Select Committee on Public Works and Land Affairs, and I feel it is only good manners to provide me with copies of Second Reading speeches.

†Mr Chairman, most of what the hon the Deputy Minister has just said is quite correct. This Bill, the Town and Regional Planners Amendment Bill, is non-contentious.

The request to amend certain sections of the Act has come from the SA Council for Town and Regional Planners and the SA Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors. Hon members will remember that in 1984 we passed the Town and Regional Planners Act, 1984, in terms of which it was an offence for any person not registered as a town and regional planner to pretend to do this work under that title.

By nature of their work, professional land surveyors have for many years been doing township planning. In terms of section 23, however, they are prohibited from using any name or title to indicate that they perform township planning or tasks related to township planning. To eliminate this problem the SA Council for Town and Regional Planners and the SA Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors have agreed to amend the Act and to allow professional land surveyors who are competent— that is, competent in the opinion of the council— to perform work as town planners on condition that such work is not reserved for town and regional planners and town and regional planners in training. We have no problem with this and we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to rectify something in connection with what the hon the Deputy Minister said and to which the hon member for Haarlem referred, viz that the LP did not agree to the Constitution, but decided to take part in the tricameral Parliament in order to change things. It is the UDP who agreed to it in their constitution.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I object to the statement that the UDP, the party that is sitting here, agreed to the Constitution.

Order! Did the hon member for Wuppertal say that?

Sir, I asked whether they had agreed to it.

The hon member did not say that.

Sir, then I withdraw the last part.

The memorandum on the objects of the Bill explains the position fully, and I shall therefore not go into the matter in detail. The provision in the Town and Regional Planners Act, 1984, that only registered town and regional planners may use certain titles and names, caused problems for land surveyors who have been doing certain township planning for decades. They now make themselves liable for prosecution if they should create the impression by doing such work that they are registered town and regional planners.

The specific provision does not hold true only for the use of the title or name as such, but also for any action which may create the impression that a person is registered as a town and regional planner. Naturally the land surveyors concerned were not happy with the state of affairs and the two professional councils—the SA Council for Town and Regional Planners and the SA Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors—met to find a solution for the problem. These two councils decided that an amendment to the Act was the only solution and both councils therefore agreed to the proposed amendments. The profession is certainly receiving assistance as a result of this measure and we therefore support the amending Bill.

The hon member for Border asked me a question and I should like to reply to him.

†A comparison should not be made between the State Land Disposal Act and the Town and Regional Planners Act. This is a general Act and the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs is responsible for this Act. It does not matter where the township is laid out, the general Act is applicable. Only one Minister has the authority, namely the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs, and so it is not necessary to extend the meaning of “Minister”. This Act deals with a profession as such and not with township planning in general.

*The hon member for Retreat referred to the question of co-operation. I want to point out to him that Second Reading speeches are circulated only after they have been delivered in one of the Houses—not before that time. That is the normal procedure.

I want to thank the hon member once again for his support of this Bill. That also applies to the hon member for Wuppertal, who gave a proper explanation of the purpose of this amendment. I therefore also thank the hon member for his contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

I think hon members are already in possession of this Second Reading speech, since I read it personally in another House.

The objects of the Forestry Council are to promote and encourage the development of the forest and timber industry. In terms of section 49 (2) of the Forest Act, 1984 (Act No 122 of 1984), the Forestry Council shall consist of 20 members, of whom three members shall be officers of the Department of Environment Affairs, six members shall represent the timber growers and six members shall represent the timber processors in the forestry industry. In addition any five other persons who can assist the council to achieve its objects may be appointed.

The present stipulation that the chairman and vice-chairman must be from the ranks of the officers, is restrictive. The amendment contemplated in clause 1 of the Bill will provide that other members of the council may also be appointed as chairman and vice-chairman.

†The Forest Act, 1984, provides at present that certain members or alternate members of a committee or working group of the council may be paid certain allowances. No provision is made for the payment of remuneration to such members. Clause 2 of this Bill now provides that such members shall not only be paid allowances, but also remuneration. Uniformity as regards the payment of compensation to members of all boards which are established under any law and which fall within my portfolio is hereby attained.

Mr Chairman, there is not much that I can add to what the hon the Minister has said, because it was all factual. What is important, however, is that whereas before the Minister could designate the chairman and vice-chairman only from among three officers of the Department of Environment Affairs, he is now no longer under that constraint. In other words, he may now appoint a chairman and vice-chairman from any of the 20 members of the board. [Interjections.] If one only appointed members from the administration, one would be making political appointments since one would merely be appointing people who work for the State. Now the Minister can appoint people from private enterprise as well.

I just want to say that the 20 members of the board consist of the three officers of the Department of Environment Affairs, six people from the Timber Growers Association, six people from the timber processors in the forest industry and five people appointed by the Minister who can assist the council in its objectives. Therefore, the top positions have not simply been given to people from the officialdom.

Mr Chairman, the Forest Act also allows that members or their alternatives be paid certain allowances. There is no provision for remuneration. Clause 2 now provides that besides certain allowances, such members be paid remuneration as well. These payments will be made after consultation with the council and the Minister of Finance. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question. Less than four years ago it was specified in the Act that the Minister would appoint the chairman and the vice-chairman, but within four years it had become necessary to change the Act. I want to know what motivated the inclusion of this paragraph in the 1984 legislation. Have they experienced problems in the meantime which necessitated this amendment?

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to reply to the hon member for Border. When one draws up legislation, one takes known facts into consideration. One is always inclined to think that a good piece of legislation has been drawn up, but after a few years one sometimes notices that there is room for improvement. The condition that the chairman and vice-chairman had to be officials of the department was limiting. In a large council consisting of 20 members, it is quite likely that there may be a member who has an excellent knowledge of the forestry industry. One would like to designate such a person with his long service and education as chairman, but one is prevented by the Act from doing so. That is why this provision is being deleted from the Act in order to give it some flexibility. The Act, therefore, was too limiting. In brief that is my reply to the hon member for Border.

†The hon member for Retreat supported the Bill, and I wish to thank him. Here again, I just want to emphasise that it gives the Minister more manoeuverability when he has to appoint the chairman or vice-chairman. That is the only reason. We had no problems in this regard. I can say that in all honesty. We had absolutely no problems. It was merely to enable us to make such a change in future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The control over sea fisheries and matters connected therewith is presently regulated by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1973 (Act No 58 of 1973), which served as a basis for this Bill.

In certain respects the Bill brings about substantial changes to the existing legal position in pursuance of recommendations in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Allocation of Quotas for the Exploitation of Living Marine Resources on a Firm Basis, the “Diemont Commission’, which were accepted by the Government in a White Paper during 1987.

The South African living marine resources are regarded as common resources belonging to the inhabitants of the Republic. However, to maintain stability in the fishing industry and to bring about meaningful and purposeful conservation, exploitation and development of the resources, regulatory measures by the State are essential. The fact that the total surface area of the Republic’s maritime zone equals 83% of the total South African land surface, places a heavy burden on those responsible for law enforcement. The State consequently expects from those who benefit by marine resource protection measures, to accept co-responsibility in bringing to task those who ignore these measures. Legislative provisions in conflict with commonly accepted principles, should be viewed against the background of an extremely difficult physical environment in which sea fisheries legislation must be enforced. The Bill will have the result that control over marine resources will be applied more effectively.

As hon members will have noticed, this Bill is a voluminous document and I would like to highlight only a few important features at this stage. Firstly, the replacement of the Fisheries Advisory Council by the Sea Fisheries Advisory Committee as well as the recognition that will now be given to interest groups within the fishing industry is a broadening of the present position. Such recognition means that these interest groups can be consulted with a view to obtaining advice and information in respect of a particular branch of the fishing industry. In this manner these bodies can make a substantial contribution towards meaningful exploitation of the limited marine resources.

†Secondly, the Bill regulates the allocation of quotas in the fishing industry. This power is assigned to the Quota Board whose members are appointed by the Minister. A person who has a direct or indirect interest in the fishing industry cannot be appointed as a member of the board. The allocation of individual quotas takes place after the total permissible catch for a particular species has been determined. The suspension, cancellation or reduction of a quota can only occur after the board has made recommendations in this regard and after the quota-holder has been given the opportunity to submit reasons why his quota should not be suspended, cancelled or reduced.

Thirdly, the Bill provides for the granting or terminating of rights of exploitation. A right of exploitation is a right granted to a person to have access to the sea or the seashore in order to exploit the living resources of the sea. A distinction is drawn between an exploiter who has obtained such a right on the basis of historical considerations and new entrants to the industry.

A further broadening in the existing Act is the provision that the Sea Fishery Fund may now also be utilised for development related to marine resources. The fund is thus no longer limited to research activities only.

The Bill also makes provision for conservation action within defined areas by the setting aside of such areas as marine reserves in which fish and aquatic plants will be protected by prohibition or limitation of the catching of fish or the collection and removal of aquatic plants. Since a high premium is placed on conservation action within marine reserves, such reserves may only be deproclaimed with the approval of Parliament. Hon members have probably noted that the new Act will also be applicable to the Prince Edward Islands. This is being done in order to ensure better control of the islands.

Finally, in order to protect and exploit the limited marine resources of the Republic effectively and to the advantage of all its inhabitants, and in an attempt to call to account whose who frequently exploit these resources in an irresponsible manner, the penalties are increased considerably in the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is designed to provide for the exercise of control over sea fisheries. We all know that this is a multimillion rand industry and that it has been abused by companies, entrepreneurs and even the ordinary layman and game fisherman. Not only does the Bill provide for the orderly exploitation of marine resources, but also for the continued conservation of this source.

This Bill has 14 parts and 56 individual clauses. This Bill was published for comment in the Gazette on 29 May 1987. Representations made by all interested bodies were taken into consideration when this Bill was drafted. My comment is that the existing legislation is contained in the Sea Fisheries Act of 1973 and the Fishing Industry Development Act of 1978.

As far as section 4 is concerned, the powers of delegation granted to the Minister and the Director-General are very wide. To take one example: Under section 53 (1) (c) a fishery control officer, if he has reasonable grounds to suspect the commission of an offence, may seize fish etc under section 53 (5). The fish is forfeited to the State unless the seizing is set aside, inter alia by the Minister, on certain grounds. If the power to set aside is delegated by the Minister, much will depend on the calibre of the delegatee. The powers which are delegable under the Bill are numerous and when one goes through this whole Bill one finds examples in many clauses of the sort of power the Minister wields. A formula should be devised whereby the more important or drastic powers are delegable, if at all, only to the most senior officials.

As far as section 8 is concerned I suggest that the organised or established fishing industry should be represented on the Sea Fishery Advisory Committee and that the requirement to this effect should be negotiable.

One of the things that came from the board that we were very happy about was that this Bill provides for a Quota Board. After a few efforts to get the legal advisers to sort out the matter, we came up with a clause that satisfied all three Houses and that was that the Minister should appoint the chairman who should be a judge or a retired judge for the period determined by him. We added that it could also be a senior magistrate who had been practising for over 10 years. That, to my mind, was a very important clause to add, because very often with these boards one gets political appointees and obviously they sometimes favour people who are sympathetic to their party and their causes. Therefore, although the Minister still appoints this juristic person, one expects no favours to be handed out in this case.

One thing that is very important is that direct interest is spelt out very clearly. If anybody serving on that Quota Board is found to have a direct interest or acquires a direct interest at a later stage, that person can be prosecuted under the common law. This is very important because, as I said in my earlier comments, the fishing industry is a multimillion rand industry. The resources are limited and have to be looked after. This board will have to look after the allocation of quotas and if they feel that quotas were perhaps unfairly allocated in the past, they can withdraw those quotas.

Clause 20 deals with the suspension, cancellation and reduction of quotas. A quota holder will be at risk for trivial behaviour as well as serious behaviour. Clause 20 (1) (d) reads and I quote “for any other reason is not a proper person to perform the business with regard to the quota”. The language, once again, is very wide and extremely vague. Almost anything of which the board disapproves could get the quota holder into trouble. A vehement debate took place about this specific clause and I must say this is the first standing committee that I have served on for a very long time where the legal advisers were asked to run backwards and forwards in order to rectify matters. One has to mention and thank the officials who were also very helpful in clarifying this issue.

Fourthly, the procedure in terms of which a quota holder’s fate is decided upon his written reasons, is inadequate and unfair. The suspension, cancellation or reduction of the quota is a very serious matter for the quota holder and he should be given a proper opportunity to represent his case—legally if he wishes, or to the board or other tribunals.

It is no answer to say that the final decision rests with the Minister if there has not been an adequate and fair inquiry. A recommendation to the Minister may appear to be good when it may not be so in reality.

In terms of clause 24 (1) quotas are “transferrable in accordance with guide-lines determined by the Minister after consultation with the Competition Board”. If this is so, I suggest that the guidelines should be determined by the Minister and not be delegated to anyone else.

Clause 25 (3) (c) provides for the suspension or termination of the right of exploitation. Once again I think the Minister will have to invite and consider a representation from the convicted exploiter before he penalises him. Furthermore, the power vested in the Minister should be delegable to the Director-General only.

Clause 33 provides for the delegation of the Minister’s power to be confined to the Director-General or to a deputy Director-General. You may notice, Sir, that I persistently harp on the powers vested in the Minister in terms of a Bill of this nature. One does not want to go back into the past and talk about what happened; one looks to the future. This is why I keep on bringing up the matter of the sometimes awesome powers vested in the Minister.

I am going to pass over a few remarks so that my hon colleagues can also get a chance to talk on this Bill. Clause 48 deals with forfeiture and seizure. This is a re-enactment of section 17 of Act 58 of 1973 and it seems that this provision is acceptable to the fishing industry. As I said, the fishing industry had a chance to make representations, but they were not vehement about this.

Clause 50 deals with jurisdiction and evidence. This is a re-enactment of section 18 of Act 58 of 1973. Some of the provisions and presumptions are far-reaching, but I assume that this section too is acceptable to the fishing industry because they did not object too vehemently to this section either.

Clause 51 deals with the limitations of liability. Considering the extent of harm which may be caused by a negligent act committed in good faith by an employer of the State, I believe that the limitation of liability in subsection 1 goes too far. The State should at least be liable, even if individuals are exempted.

The limitation of liability in subsection 2 also seems to be much wider than can be justified. Why should people be exempted from duty to exercise reasonable care unless the circumstances are exceptional? In my view this limitation should be curtailed. We also had a very extensive debate in this regard and all the views were canvassed.

Clause 53 deals with the powers of fishery control officers. These powers are extremely wide and are capable of causing considerable disruption. However, I suppose that the granting of these powers—or most of them—can be justified. Particular note should be taken of the powers of seizure. In my opinion it would be wise to establish some test or criterion for the setting aside of forfeiture by the court and to establish some procedure for satisfying of the Minister that a forfeiture should be set aside.

I want to thank the officials and tell the hon the Minister that I believe this is the basis of a very important Act in regard to sea fisheries, more so when one considers the number of people—I refer specifically to my people—working in these industries who have been exploited over many years and are being exploited even now, especially when it comes to quotas. I am sure my hon colleagues will say a lot more in this regard.

As a basis, however, I think this is a very good Act. With those words we support this Bill as it stands.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I want to make it clear that this Bill is “Coloured”. Nevertheless, I was very pleased to hear the hon the Minister say that the South African living marine resources are regarded as common resources belonging to all the inhabitants of South Africa. I want to elaborate on this for a moment.

Firstly, when looking at the industry as a whole, our people—I am referring to the non-White component—are still being wronged. I want to explain to the hon the Minister why I am saying this. In the first place there is an Act, viz the Sea-shore Act, which provides that the local authority with jurisdiction over a particular shore-line, decides on who may fish there and make use of the quay and other facilities. On the face of it this Bill seems to be quite acceptable, but it conceals power to the extent that discrimination can still take place. I can illustrate my case with many examples if the hon the Minister does not quite understand what I am trying to say. I urgently call upon the hon the Minister to refer the Sea-shore Act to the standing committee.

While on the topic, I want to add that the regulations contained in this legislation should be revised and amended, because they are out of touch and impractical. I should like to mention an example.

I want to use commercial perlemoen fishing as an example. I am referring to the example of 185 metres from the high-water mark. During 1965 the Yeats Commission investigated fishing from Cape Point to Danger Point. The regulations in connection with the catching of perlemoen by commercial divers were drawn up as a result of a recommendation in the report which was published in 1966. Subregulation (7) of Regulation 49 which was promulgated in Government Notice R620 dated 22 April 1966 read as follows:

This regulation had no scientific grounds, and was promulgated without any involvement on the part of either the packing industry or the commercial perlemoen permit-holders. Since the implementation of this regulation there has been constant confrontation between the public and the commercial perlemoen divers. As the seashore areas have become more built up, the enmity against the divers has increased considerably. It is so bad at present that divers are being fired at with firearms. Certain provisions in the Sea Fisheries Act, Act 58 of 1973, make it impossible for the commercial perlemoen diver to defend himself in accordance with our democratic legal system. Section 18 (2) of the Act reads as follows:

Section 18 (3) of the Act reads as follows:

1. (a) based on any act alleged to have been performed in a particular area, the act in question shall be deemed to have been performed in such an area;
2. (b) any information obtained by means of any instrument or chart used to determine any distance or depth, shall be deemed to be correct unless the contrary is proved.

In a verdict given against two commercial divers by Magistrate Pinter in the Caledon court on 25 May 1984, he alleged in his summary that the Act contained a built-in presumption clause and that convictions could be obtained by the inspectorate on the grounds of these presumptions. He also contended that the State did not need to prove where the high-water mark was. Furthermore he fined divers A Kleinschmidt and G Swartz R300 of which R200 was suspended for three years.

This sentence made it impossible for commercial divers to undertake their extremely dangerous task in peace. These days the public contacts the inspectorate regularly as soon as a commercial vessel comes close to shore.

There were no initial problems after the promulgation of regulation 49 (g) of 1960. Between 1966 and 1975 the shore-line was sparsely developed, in contrast with today when holiday homes are popping up all over Pearly Beach, Betty’s Bay and Franskraal. The boom in building activities along the shore is causing more and more problems with the 185-metre strip. The department only brought the regulation to the attention of the divers’ associations on 16 August 1971 and requested that their members should adhere to it. No prosecutions took place until 1981. During that year three commercial divers were accused, but they paid spot fines because they did not want to become involved in long, drawn-out legal procedures at great expense at that stage. That prosecution was followed by only two other prosecutions, to which I have referred. Since then there has been a prosecution in the Hangklip area and the case is being tried in the magistrate’s court at Caledon at the moment. The regulations that are being promulgated are important to us, because that is where the problems lie.

We are quite satisfied with this piece of legislation and the Quota Board, but as my colleagues said, when it comes to the direct or indirect involvement of members of the board, I should like to know where the cut-off point is: Is it one’s children, one’s brothers or sisters? There could be trouble in that one might favour someone or harm someone else, or there might be a lack of confidence in the Quota Board. We should rectify the problem from the outset, therefore. I am pleased that the Bill provides that interest groups will also have the right to put their case, to give advice and to obtain information.

The Bill also regulates the allocation of quotas in the fishing industry. An excellent addition to the amending Bill is that a quota may only be suspended, cancelled or reduced after the board has made recommendations in this regard and the quota holder has had an opportunity to furnish reasons as to why his quota should not be suspended, cancelled or reduced. In the past the hon the Minister had this power, and quotas were allocated at random and then cancelled again. I hope the hon the Minister will honour the board’s point of view concerning the allocation and cancellation of quotas.

Another matter which is provided for in the Bill, is that the Sea Fishery Fund can now also be used for developments in connection with marine resources. The fund is no longer only for research, therefore. In the last place I want to ask the hon the Minister to us his influence to allocate quotas to Coloured fishermen. The reasons for this are well-known. We support the Bill.

Sir, one is always satisfied when committee members are of the opinion that a piece of legislation is colourless, but because they are so colourless, we always pay the highest price. Sometimes one has to sacrifice the colourlessness of legislation, and I should like to explain this as follows.

†The fishing industry in this country was built on the backs of Coloured fishermen. When one goes through the history of this country one sees that the Coloured men were the first fishermen and that they were the only fishermen for a very long time. Other people, however, became rich. There are so many of us in this Chamber that represent those poor Coloured fishermen, and what we have done to the Coloured fishermen in this country has made them criminals because of control. Quotas are given exclusively—and I use the privilege of this Chamber—to White fishermen, while the poor Coloured fishermen on the West Coast are left out completely.

I am not a fundi on this matter, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not mention it in this House, because time after time people come to one with complaints and allegations. I just want to use this opportunity, while we are discussing this piece of legislation, to appeal to the hon the Minister to see to it, once this board has been instituted and is functioning, that they also consider those people by whom this industry was founded—and they should not be considered on a paternalistic basis, but on a fair basis. Let us not forget those people, because we can ill afford that. We are so concerned about the economy of this country, but if we are not going to look after those Coloured fishermen, we are going to destroy the fishing industry and the people that make it work—particularly on the West coast. I say this because every Coloured fisherman who cannot find employment with Whites is now being turned into a criminal because, in order to maintain his home, he will have to fish illegally. This is something with which I, and the great majority of us who lived near the sea, grew up. We have seen this happen over the years to the “trek” fishermen.

*Sir, the restrictions even apply to the dragnet fishermen, the fishermen who drag the nets. They have made a living in that way for decades, for centuries. I have always been astounded at how someone can go fishing at sea and simply know where the fish are. I would still be standing there, not knowing where the fish are, but that man would be able to tell one where there is a great deal of fish.

†He will spot the fish. However, that is a dying art, simply because we are not encouraging those people who have the necessary talent—people outside who want to call me Coloured can do so in this instance. I will be proud then, because I am presenting the case of the poor man.

Mr Chairman, coming from that area which is sandwiched between the Ciskei and Transkei coastlines, I want to know from the hon the Minister whether there is a bilateral or multilateral agreement between South Africa and these neighbouring states as far as their resources are concerned, because I take it that although the Transkei and the Ciskei have their own resources 12 miles from the seashore, they are incapable of exploiting those resources. The result is that foreigners can come and exploit those resources, which will in turn affect us here in the RSA. Do we have such agreements? If we do not have such bilateral or multilateral agreements with these neighbouring states, is it envisaged that suitable agreements will be entered into to protect the resources off the shores of the Ciskei and the Transkei?

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members who support this Bill. I want to thank the hon member for Retreat for his kind words to our officials and members of the standing committee. I got the impression that the standing committee did very good work. They really dealt with this whole issue in depth.

With regard to those few issues about which hon members are still not quite happy at this stage, I want to say that I trust that when we put this Bill into practice and issue the necessary regulations, they will find that the Bill works well in practice and that the issues they have raised here will be dealt with. [Interjections.]

It seems to me as if the hon member for Retreat is slightly worried about the delegation of power. I can tell the hon member that the delegation of power is always done with the greatest measure of responsibility. There is also a continual feedback from one’s delegates.

If the delegated power is abused, it can immediately be withdrawn. The official can, of course, be reprimanded if necessary.

*In respect of this particular Act it is unfortunately necessary for us to delegate that power to the officials who have to exercise the control. Not all of them are little angels with their feet in sea water. There are people who think of very clever plans to exploit the source in an illegal way. It is difficult to catch these people. Every member sitting here today who is involved with the sea, can tell me stories about how people manage to evade even these officials to whom the power has been delegated.

We are dealing with difficult members of the public. It is therefore necessary to delegate our powers to these officials. If they abuse these powers and this is brought to our attention, hon members can rest assured that we shall take firm action against them. Hon members need not doubt that.

†The hon member for Retreat referred to the Quota Board. He asked whether the guidelines— if I understood him correctly—according to which the board will operate, will be determined by the Minister. Is that what the hon member meant?

Yes.

The guidelines will be determined by the Minister on the advice of the board.

I can foresee that there will be discussions between myself and the board as to what the guidelines should be. I think the more clearly we describe these guidelines, the less possibility there will be for quotas to be issued in an irregular way. I think the guidelines should be very strict.

*We shall see to that. Those guidelines must really be very strict.

†Mr Chairman, in the past—and this is a fact— quotas were issued and withdrawn by Ministers, as the hon member for Wuppertal has also pointed out.

*That is a fact, but hon members should bear in mind that it is a great responsibility for a Minister to decide who must be given quotas and who must not. Pressure is brought to bear on him from all sides. I am very glad that in my time a quota board has come into being to allocate these quotas, so that I need no longer do it. I am very grateful for this Bill. As far as the board itself is concerned, it will be a juristic body.

*Hon members will have noticed that following the recommendations of the standing committee, the chairman and vice-chairman will now be from the legal profession. I believe the Quota Board will try to take an independent decision on each application it has to consider. [Interjections.] Apropos of that interjection, I want to add that the present interim quota board—which is not yet fulfilling all its functions—is a multiracial board.

†I now wish to say something about the liability of the State. I have already made the point that the conduct of the official should always be in good faith.

*I think that is the key word. He must always act in good faith. If there is proof that he did not act in good faith, naturally he cannot appeal to the protection afforded him by the applicable section.

The hon member for Wuppertal referred to problems which they have concerning the Sea-shore Act. I believe that the Act will receive the necessary attention and that the necessary amendments will be made in due course.

I want to tell the hon member for Wuppertal that catching perlemoen commercially is a problem. The people on the beaches tell me that the commercial people are wiping out the perlemoen. The commercial people tell me that people are wiping out the perlemoen from the beaches. Some say there is no perlemoen left; others say there is still a lot. That is why we have to do research on our fish resources. I can only be led by what the researchers tell me. At present the researchers say that at the present level of exploitation the perlemoen source seems to be remaining fairly constant.

I am aware of the uncomfortable situation between the people catching from the beach and those catching from the sea. There is a limit of 180 metres. Some people who catch from the beach want me to change it to 200 metres. But the people who catch from the sea say that if I do that and limit them to a distance of 200 metres from the beach, they will not find any perlemoen.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister what the perlemoen divers must do? The line is not visible, and that is the problem, for perlemoen divers are being fined and jailed because no one can prove where the line is. [Interjections.]

I realise that that is a very difficult situation. We shall see how clearly we can define the regulations in order to eliminate this problem. [Interjections.]

That brings me to the regulations. The regulations contained in legislation such as this, are terribly important, of course, because one has to apply the flexibility afforded by the legislation correctly. A large number of variables which cannot be stipulated in the legislation have to be controlled by means of regulations. The sea is variable, weather conditions are variable and there is also a constant need to change the regulations. One cannot come to Parliament every time something needs to be rectified. We do that by means of regulations.

I have already spoken about the allocation and cancellation of quotas.

The hon member for Toekomsrus said: “The fishing industry was built on the backs of the Coloured fishermen.” [Interjections.] I am not going to broach the matter with the hon member, but I am prepared to agree with him that they did their bit. I do want to give the House a few figures, however, to put matters into perspective. In every industry, whether it is the garage, farming or the fishing industry, there are rich and poor people. [Interjections.] It is the same in politics. Some are wealthier than others. Let us look at what fishermen in a particular sector of the fishing industry earned last year. I watched those men who work on the pelagic fishing boats. There are approximately 1 000 of them, if I am not mistaken. I want to tell the House what the crew members of these boats earned. I have taken the boat which fared best as my example. This boat has a good skipper, mate and deck-crew, and it fared best of all the boats. The deck-crew, the ordinary deck-hands, earned R55 396 last year. Her skipper earned R152 000. Her mate earned R69 000. That was the boat that fared best. [Interjections.] When one compares this kind of income with those in the Public Service, for example, one will note that a Director-General in the Public Service earns a salary of R55 000 per year. Yet here we see that a deck-hand can earn R55 000 per year if things go well for him. That does not include bonuses. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I appreciate the figures mentioned by the hon the Minister, but those are not the people I was talking about. The people I mentioned are the ordinary fishermen who are unemployed because they cannot find work.

As I said at the beginning, each industry has people who do well and others who do not do as well. These deck-hands are ordinary fishermen. [Interjections.] I merely mentioned these figures to indicate that one must keep the right perspective when discussing people’s incomes.

What about the boat that fared least well?

I can give the hon member the figures for that boat as well. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Eersterus must contain himself. I should also like to ask the hon the Minister whether his figures have reference to the wages of Coloured fishermen, boatmen and mates.

Yes, Sir.

I shall not mention the name of the boat that fared worst, but I shall give it to the hon member afterwards. The deck-hand of this boat earned R12 332. Her mate earned R15 000 and her skipper more than R33 000. Hon members will note, therefore, that there are people in the industry who do very well and others who do less well. I am referring to ordinary fishermen. One must be careful not to say that all fishermen are suffering. That is not true.

†The hon member for Border asked me about the Transkeian and Ciskeian agreements. In their independence agreements provision was made for bilateral agreements between Transkei and Ciskei as well as between either country and South Africa. As far as I know it has been decided in principle that such an agreement should be concluded but I do not know whether this has been done.

*Provision has been made, however, for such a bilateral agreement between the two countries.

I think I have dealt with most of the points put by hon members. I should like to thank them once again for their contributions and also for their support in the standing committee. I believe that this Bill is an instrument which will enable us to develop this important natural resource to its optimum.

Something is not clear to me and I should like some clarity about it.

†I know there are provisions for bilateral agreements. I want to know whether there is a bilateral agreement with regard to the Department of Sea Fisheries, because Bophuthatswana was rescued in terms of a bilateral agreement. Is there any such agreement?

I was informed that an agreement with the Ciskei is already in existence. We are negotiating an agreement with the Transkei.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I want to make an earnest appeal to this House that we should not agree to the recommendation. On the contrary. I want to move as an amendment:

This is a very unfortunate situation, not only for the inhabitants of Rust der Winter, but also for the inhabitants of what is called KwaNdebele. I undertook a tour through that self-governing state with the specific aim of seeing how its agricultural land was being utilised. Farms which have been bought up for incorporation in the area are simply lying there neglected. Implements are not being maintained and any previous farming activities have ceased.

What makes the situation even more unfortunate—and that is why the standing committee had to adopt the following resolution in that regard—is that the Government’s handling of the whole matter was not what it should be. Firstly an assurance was given to the inhabitants of that area by the former Deputy Minister, Mr Ben Wilkens, that the delimitation of the boundaries of that self-governing state had been finalised once and for all. The people had, to a certain extent, reconciled themselves to that fact. Then, however, it seemed as if there would be problems involving Nebo which had to be incorporated in another self-governing state, and the hon the Minister must clarify this for me. It seems as if an undertaking was given to KwaNdebele that Nebo would be incorporated in Lebowa and that Rust der Winter would be given in exchange.

It goes even further. The hon the Minister must furnish an explanation; he was in the standing committee. There was a strong suggestion—and this was widely reported—that Bloedfontein, Geweerfontein and Kalkfontein, which were to be incorporated in Bophuthatswana, were to be linked up there. In the standing committee it was stated that that would not be the case. That is one of the reasons why I am saying that it seems as if the Government has not dealt with the matter as it should have been dealt with.

Nor were proper consultations held with organised agriculture, and the standing committee resolved that:

1. (1) Consultation had not taken place according to the conventionally accepted method agreed to between the Government and organised agriculture;
2. (2) further opportunity be afforded to those affected to appear before the committee to given evidence in order to make inputs in regard to the proposed declaration of the Rust der Winter area as a released area;
3. (3) although there is no statutory obligation to follow the accepted convention, your Committee requests the Government in future to respect the agreement with organised agriculture.

There was great dissatisfaction among the farmers who gave evidence before the standing committee. If we have to relinquish, to KwaNdebele, more agricultural land, which is at present in use, whilst there is agricultural land which is not in use, it simply sounds to me like the wrong thing to do. My impression is that one should rather make land closer to the city available for urbanisation to those who spend almost a third of their day travelling to work and back. An official of the department—I shall not mention his name— made a submission to the department in connection with land which was to address the problem and which would bring people closer to their places of work. I understand that the recommendation generally has wide support and the Government is apparently also sympathetically disposed to it. Then the divisional committee of the National Party in the Witbank constituency objected to the proposal to make that land available for that purpose. One would like to ask the Government, when such a matter is involved, not merely to listen to the divisional committee of the National Party, because then we are not going to take the correct decisions. The Government apparently heeded the objection and new proposals have now been made, ie that Rust der Winter be incorporated in KwaNdebele. From all the evidence available, the farmers themselves are not in favour of the incorporation, apart from those who want to be incorporated or who want to sell. The other day I raised the topic of the farmers’ debt burden in this House and today I want to do so once again. [Interjections.] I am delivering my speech; and the hon member can deliver his own speech. Some of the farmers are eager to sell, because they owe tremendous sums of money, for example N J Els of erf 66 who owes R982 000; D J van Rensburg of erf 99 who owes R340 000; P S du Plessis of erven 4, 9 and 23 who owes R539 000; T O R Wichveldt of area 15, Rust der Winter, who owes R3,2 million; C L Wichveldt who owes R800 000; C P Brand who owes R470 000 on erven 44 and 50; F A Vosloo who owes R300 000; D J Scholtz who owes R490 000 on erven 34 and 63; P J T Olivier of erven 75 and 76 who owes R177 192; S J Stricht who owes R260 000.

That’s peanuts.

The hon member can say it is peanuts, but in my opinion that money can be put to much better use in ways other than in the purchasing of this land.

Hon members know of the violence that took place and is still taking place in KwaNdebele. He knows that those who oppose certain concepts in the area are being detained or restricted. If this House now opposes the wishes of those individuals who are being restricted, amongst others—I held discussions with one of them …

When?

It is none of that hon member’s business. [Interjections.] I held discussions with them, and they do not want this sort of thing to be done. We are, however, going ahead and having that area opened up or incorporated, whatever the case may be. The reason why I am quoting the figures, those which the hon member calls “peanuts”, is because the question that has arisen is at what amounts those farms are going to be valued with a view to discharging the debts of those people. Are the amounts at which the farms are going to be valued, to be employed not only to discharge the debts, but also to give those people a few rand in their pockets so that they can seek a livelihood somewhere else? That is the obstacle.

Let me say to this House that if we agree to allow this to be done—it would be contrary to the wishes of a large group of the inhabitants of KwaNdebele itself and of Rust der Winter—we would inevitably be condoning the violence, the cases of detention and the irregularities taking place there.

I want to add that one has to make special arrangements to travel through that area, because one runs the risk of being arrested if one does not take the necessary steps. One of the Whites who once travelled with me, was detained for four hours for questioning because he had shown people how the place had deteriorated and how neglected it was. I took a kombi-load of people there from my constituency, because they kept telling us that we talked about these things, but that they wanted to know what it was really all about. Since there were women present in the group, I eventually suggested that we should rather turn back. I thought we had seen enough and did not want to have women locked up in gaol …

Where you are, there are always women!

Yes, of course there have to be women, because my mother was a woman.

That is what it is all about, and why I am asking this House to refer the matter back to the standing committee so that it can be given more thorough consideration and so that the relevant bodies can make further contributions. I have only a few of the memorandums here from people who are opposed to the incorporation. They are pages long, and furnish grave evidence against people who want to sell. If one weighs up the various factors, one against the other, it appears that the majority of people do not want to be incorporated.

I appeal to the House to refer that report back to the standing committee. I also want to point out that while the standing committee was sitting, valuators were sent to the farms as if it had already been decided that the land would be incorporated. Some of the farmers are advocating that they should be paid out as a matter of urgency, so that the uncertainty, hanging like a sword of Damocles over their heads, can be eliminated. I do not want them to be subject to any further uncertainty. I rather want to suggest that we take no decision at all about the incorporation of Rust der Winter and that the status quo be maintained.

Mr Chairman, I stand up to support this report. At the very outset I want to correct a misconception. During the no-confidence debate, and now again, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned to the House the names of certain farmers and their supposed debts, thereby creating the impression that the Labour Party had supported a step whereby the Government would discharge the debt burden of these farmers. If it was the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s intention to say this, let me state that it is incorrect. The Labour Party did, in fact, decide on steps for the incorporation of this area—for reasons I shall indicate—after two years of negotiations and the hearing of evidence by this committee.

I am completely dumbfounded that members of the opposition, including the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who was previously a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, never put their case that strongly in this committee and never objected per se to consolidation or the incorporation of Rust der Winter in KwaNdebele.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member must not tell untruths to the House. I did a thorough job of putting my case in Pretoria when evidence was being heard.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Chairman, I appeal to my hon colleagues who served with me on the standing committee. They will be able to support me on this point.

I want to go further and say that on Monday, 1 February, during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid…

I was absent.

… the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s Chief Whip, who stood in for him on that occasion, supported a Bill, the Borders of Particular States Extension Amendment Bill, 9B of 1988. This legislation makes provision, among other things, for the incorporation of land into Ciskei, which is a completely independent state. The hon the Chief Whip had no objection to that. [Interjections.] Perhaps they should prepare themselves before they go to the standing committees, so that they can be properly aware of what is discussed there.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also said during the no-confidence debate “I know, however, that the people do not study proposals; they simply agree to them.” I think that is an untruth, because the Labour Party decided to serve on this committee for two years and to listen to the evidence of all interested parties. After we had taken all evidence into consideration, we came to a decision. It was therefore not a question of simply granting approval for certain things. We did our job properly.

I want to quote from the constitution of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said his party supported the Freedom Charter. Let us listen for a moment to what the Freedom Charter has to say. I quote:

So whence this opposition, now that land is being made available on which to settle Black people? Is it not specifically the policy of the Official Opposition? As I have indicated, there has been a very long run-up to this report. Last year, during the recess, we heard a second batch of evidence. I regret to say that it was in fact this evidence that ultimately convinced us that we should incorporate this land into KwaNdebele. The evidence of these people was riddled with racism.

The tone of the evidence was that the land could not be given to the Blacks, because it was agricultural land of too high a grade. It was also said that they would destroy the fauna and flora and that they did not know how the farm on irrigation land. Sir, I cannot identify with this kind of racism. If there is ignorance on the part of the average Black man in this country, it is because he has never had an opportunity to become acquainted with certain agricultural techniques.

Many of these people who came to give evidence before the committee were openly self-acknowledged supporters of the CP and the AWB. [Interjections.] Throughout, the tenor of the evidence was that the quality of the land was too good; that consolidation went hand-in-hand with the trauma of community disruption and that the new border farmers feared that the value of their land would decrease if they bordered on a Black state. The CP advocates a homeland, but when they themselves have to pay the price for a homeland, it is not acceptable to them. When they themselves have to make the sacrifices, so that their policy can be implemented, it is not acceptable to them. The quickest way for a farmer to become a CP supporter, is for his family farm to be incorporated in a Black national state.

Within the context of KwaNdebele there is a great need for job creation. Daily there are hundreds of thousands of commuters, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has pointed out, travelling for three to six hours from KwaNdebele to the PWV area to work. Why is that so? There are no job opportunities for the people in KwaNdebele.

I want to state here that any economist worth his salt would tell one that the labour sector in which one can create the most job opportunities is that of agriculture. The reason for this is that agriculture is the primary source in the creation of prosperity. Then come the secondary sources that process the agricultural products. Consequently there is a chain reaction. More work is continually being created. If we cannot succeed with the economic development of the people of this country, all the constitutional development and all the grand schemes would be of no avail, because at the end of the day it is going to be the standard of living that dictates the future of this country.

On occasion I have had the privilege of visiting Lebowa, Gazankulu and Taung. Here I saw what valuable work was being done by the hon the Minister’s department. It is valuable work because, removed from the politics of the national states, they establish Black farmers on economic units, offering them an opportunity to make a good living within the context of the family. I have talked to farmers in Lebowa who earn up to R25 000 per year on their 10 ha orange farms. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that this R25 000 compares very favourably with the R80 per month that the farmers pay the Black workers in Rust der Winter during the season. They earn R80 per month plus a bag of mealie-meal! Rust der Winter also falls between KwaNdebele and Witlaagte, another part that also belongs to KwaNdebele. If Rust der Winter were to be added to KwaNdebele, geographically speaking this would be meaningful consolidation which would make the regional government, KwaNdebele, economically more viable.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister, when this land is transferred to KwaNdebele, to ask the South African Development Trust to administer this land in the interim, in the process establishing small farmers on economic units. Rust der Winter has a very long history, but in a certain sense, for Rust der Winter history is repeating itself. It was Rust der Winter which, after the Second World War, was given to the poor Whites as an irrigation scheme in an effort to solve the poor White question. They solved it, and many of those farmers have got to the very top of the ladder. I now think it only fair to give the Black farmers of KwaNdebele an opportunity to uplift themselves economically too.

In conclusion I want to say that my party has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the Land and Trust Acts of 1913 and 1946. Even if one were to delete those Acts today, however, it would not change White tenure one iota. That is why a programme of affirmative action is needed, on the part of the State, to allow the other, less privileged section of this country’s population to obtain agricultural land. Thus the situation would be reversed.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

The situation has to be reversed so that less than 13% of the land is not occupied by more than 80% of the population. About that I have no qualms of conscience. There are farmers within the Rust der Winter area who can settle elsewhere. They can freely purchase land in the rest of South Africa; something that not one of us in this House or the Black community can do. That is a privilege reserved only for Whites in this country. I want to express the hope that this land will contribute to the upliftment of the KwaNdebele area and that this will lead to more job creation and will also bring about stability there.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to correct certain things the hon member said here. He quoted to us from the Freedom Charter. That had its origins in Kliptown where we grew up. Nowhere in the Freedom Charter is it stated that we have to create homeland governments to give people land. We can still debate that issue at great length. Hon members would do well to go and read our Constitution.

Mention was made here of Lebowa and Bophuthatswana and other places where the development of farms has taken place. I said a short while ago, however, that in KwaNdebele I saw agricultural land lying unutilised. I challenge anyone to refute that. [Interjections.] The hon member is quite correct in saying he is opposed to what the racists said there before the committee. We peppered them with questions. When we asked the one man what he was going to do, he replied that we should wait until election time. Then we would see what he would do. The hon member has now lodged precisely the same plea that the hon the Minister lodged before the standing committee. It was almost as if he wanted to repeat the hon the Minister’s plea word for word.

I did not say that land should not be given to those people.

What are you saying?

The problem those people have concerns the commuters who live too far from their places of work. Virtually a quarter to a third of their day is spent on transport. I want to know how one is going to solve the problems of the commuters if one is now going to incorporate this land. In the short term this problem will not be solved. [Interjections.] Those hon members should rather look after the problems of their constituencies and make decent speeches in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Northern Cape must contain himself. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must continue and not pay any attention to the interjections.

The previous speaker submitted that any economist would tell one that that incorporation would create fantastic job opportunities, thus offering that regional government the opportunity to govern properly.

In his own words he has negated the previous decision of his party, because now he believes in an ethnic regional government. We hear, day in and day out, that they are not in favour of that. [Interjections.] I have seen what it looks like there; I was also there. I said last year—and I say it again—that if one establishes regional government, one does not do so on an ethnic basis. That is why regional governments established on an ethnic basis have patchwork pieces of land, throughout various areas in which they are established, instead of establishing a regional government, in the true sense of the word, which would fit into a federal set-up in South Africa.

The hon member was angered by the so-called racists who gave evidence before the committee. He did not listen carefully, however, to how the bee-farming, which is responsible for pollination and fertilisation, would be wiped out. [Interjections.] I am speaking about farming and not about their racist statement. Evidence was furnished to indicate that that area is one of the foremost maize-seed producers in South Africa. If those aspects are not addressed, we cannot do justice to the agricultural land of South Africa. That is my argument. The question arises again: Why has the already incorporated agricultural land not been utilised in such a way that wonderful, economically strong and prosperous farms have been created? The argument does not hold water. First utilise the land there is before adding additional land which could perhaps also be neglected. The hon member must also remember that I was born in that area. [Interjections.] I know those parts of the world. That is where I was born. I grew up in Transvaal cities. I know what it is like there. Agricultural land is not utilised as it should be. If the hon member can prove anything to the contrary, I should like to hear it. He must give me proof here that the already incorporated agricultural land is being properly utilised.

I say again: Investigate that official’s relevant proposals which will not only solve the jobcreation problem, but also ensure that the commuters are less exhausted because they have to travel long distances to their places of work.

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to reply to what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said. I want to quote once more from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s constitution, the Freedom Charter, paragraph 3. It reads as follows:

I have no problem with that.

It seems to me as if it is the hon member who has problems with ethnicity in his constitution and not I.

As far as I am concerned, from the very outset we have said that we do not support geo-ethnic units.

But here you are supporting it.

We are not. There must be a difference between ideologies on the one hand and needs on the other. Even if one were to solve all the political problems, one would still not have met people’s needs. Then one would simply be where the people of Africa are. They obtained political freedom, but together with that they have poverty and are dying of hunger.

The hon member pointed out that the bee-farming would supposedly be jeopardised. The beefarmers were so verkramp; they said that the Black people ate the honey and that that was why they would not be able to continue with their bee-farming if KwaNdebele took it over. [Interjections.] My question is whether it is only White people who can be bee-farmers. And why can the people of KwaNdebele not be given an opportunity to be actively involved in the field of beefarming? Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not being racist, too, when he asks why the people should be given more land that can be neglected? Does he accept, as a matter of course, that the people will neglect the land?

There is proof of that. There are hectares and hectares of land … [Interjections.] Sir, it is not my task to account for land that is supposedly unutilised. I think that is the hon the Minister’s task, and the hon member should direct his questions to him. All I can say is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised a very poor argument here.

Sir, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s argument today, and last week too, can only be described as wilful short-sightedness. The hon the Leader uses childish arguments, mentioning lists of names of people and amounts of money they supposedly owe. He thinks hon members in the House are under the misconception that those are the amounts the State will pay out for those farms. We know, do we not, that that is not how it works when it comes to land valuations. The hon the Leader also says he regards it as a waste of money that could be employed more productively elsewhere, but he does not tell us how that can be done. The hon the Leader went on to say that we would be betraying the people and that they are now on the way to independence. Surely he knows that is not true. The hon the Leader knows that regardless of whether Rust der Winter becomes part of KwaNdebele or not, when that homeland asks for independence, that will have nothing to do with the matter.

The Defence Force will put things right.

I do not wear a Balaklava; I say where I stand. My colleague from the Free State area has already come to grips with the inconsistencies in his argument. I am not going to elaborate on that any further. I merely want to say that it is general knowledge that the main political parties within the system disagree on the final political blueprint for the Republic, and when I talk about the main political parties, I am referring, of course, to the Labour Party and the National Party. Equally there is general consensus about the fact that in all the regions of the country, as it is composed at present, there should be optimum development. We believe in regional development, because we believe that it will ultimately fit into our model of a federal geographic structure. For this reason my party has no problem, as the hon member Mr Lockey said, in supporting the incorporation of Rust der Winter.

I want to raise another point. We heard here of the patchwork portions of land scattered everywhere and lying unutilised, but let us tell one another: Is it not true that that area has had protracted droughts? Surely that is true. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows it. He has forgotten, however, to tell us that the Rust der Winter area is part of an irrigation scheme. As the hon member Mr Lockey said, in any pattern of economic development it is the broadening of the economic base in the development and expansion of the primary sector that eventually gives rise to secondary and tertiary development.

†The creation of a strong co-operative structure is fundamental. Agriculture, after all, has a strong growth potential which can act as the basis for the better spreading of economic activities in the rural areas.

*That serves as the first link in the process of development and is nothing new. It has been proved throughout the world. Agriculture does not only play an important role in providing jobs, but also lebensraum on a decentralised basis.

We have heard, after all, of the hundreds of thousands of people who commute each day.

Last week, in this House, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the patchwork scraps of unutilised and neglected agricultural land in KwaNdebele. We must put the record straight, however, for as in any other region, in KwaNdebele the agricultural potential of the land differs from place to place. It is not, after all, a small area; we are speaking of 235 000 hectares. There are also dry regions. The agricultural potential differs from marginal grazing on the one hand to good agricultural land on the other. I am not making excuses. It could be that in certain areas incorrect farming methods have been applied. Then, however, it is the primary task of the department and of the Government in that area to tackle the task of training. We have no right to say that we are withholding a certain piece of land until the people start farming properly.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also knows that the standing committee was given the assurance that the SA Development Trust would become involved in the development in the Rust der Winter area. In this connection I do want to ask the hon the Minister to have his department ensure that the area is properly planned. Perhaps he could spell out for us today what he envisages for the future. It is true, is it not, that the farms and the potential productivity would decline in the long term if management systems were not based on scientific planning and management principles. It would, however, be short-sighted if we refused, at this stage, to have the land incorporated because we were afraid that that would not be done in this way. We all know—the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition ought to know this as well—that the SA Development Trust is already famous for its achievements in other Black areas. The hon member Mr Lockey spelt it out to us a few moments ago, and we have no cards on the table to prove the contrary at the moment. We are convinced that the incorporation of Rust der Winter would contribute to meaningful regional development. I support the report.

Mr Chairman, I have listened to the debate with great interest. Actually it was something of a revelation to me. I want to thank the hon member Mr Lockey and the hon member for Diamant, who supported this report, for the thorough preparation they did. I also took note of the objections of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

At the very outset I want to express a word of special appreciation to hon members of this House who served on the standing committee. As the hon member Mr Lockey said, it was a long and protracted process before a decision was ultimately reached. The members of the standing committee took a great deal of trouble over a period of months—I would almost be inclined to say a few years—to study the whole problem area. They did not reach a decision haphazardly or lightly. I want to express my appreciation for the trouble that was taken.

I also want to express my appreciation for the fact that when the standing committee—I think hon members of this House played an exceptional role in that committee—felt that certain consultation procedures were perhaps not being adhered to strictly, it decided to grant all aggrieved land-owners an opportunity to give evidence from scratch. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition even showed us how thick the pile of documents comprising the evidence was. In that manner the degree of dissatisfaction there could have been in regard to consultation was eliminated in a responsible fashion by the standing committee. I think that three days were allocated to the hearing of evidence. Only then, after all that evidence had been heard, did the standing committee decide that it supported this report.

Whilst I am referring to the standing committee, in this House I should also like to express a word of appreciation to the chairman of the standing committee who dealt with an extremely contentious matter in a particularly patient and tactful manner.

This afternoon I found it an experience to listen to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in his role as champion of the interests of White land-owners. [Interjections.] There is always something new from Africa! [Interjections.] According to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—I do not want to reply to his speech in too much detail, since other hon members have replied effectively to his arguments—one of the main considerations for his wanting to see this report referred back to the standing committee was that more than 70% of the land-owners were not satisfied with this decision.

The land-owners are people who own land at the moment. The Government resolved, in this case, as in many other cases, to ask the White landowners to relinquish their vested rights in that land and to sell with a view to bringing about a better and fairer distribution of land among the various population groups of this country.

As a White person I am aware that there are families living in Rust der Winter, who have been living there for a long time and who have become established there. They have come to love the land. They have made a success of their farming ventures. Those farmers are not bankrupt. There are many successful and progressive farmers. I know that it is a painful experience for those people to relinquish everything they have and to seek a livelihood somewhere else. In the interests of the development of that regional government, and in the interests of better and more economic opportunities for the Black people in that area, the Government has decided that it wants to use the taxpayers’ money to buy up the properties which belong to Whites at present and to make them available for this national state. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has objected to that.

Sir, can the hon the Minister please tell us how much the eventual consolidation of KwaNdebele is going to cost the South African taxpayer?

Unfortunately I do not have the exact figure, but it is a large amount. A year or two ago the hon the State President mentioned that the total amount spent on consolidation during the past decade or two was slightly in excess of R1 000 million. If one wants to develop those regional governments, however, and if one wants to bring about a fairer distribution of the economic assets of the country, surely one has to do that!

If one adopts the approach that whenever landowners object, the Government is not permitted to purchase the land with a view to the redistribution of assets, one is, in point of fact, affecting the Government’s negotiating capability when it comes to the purchase of land for further urban development. The Coloured community needs more land for urban development. The Indian community needs more land for urbanisation.

The Black community needs more land for urbanisation. Hon members know what a hullabaloo was created with the erstwhile proposal that a Black suburb, Norweto, be established on land belonging to Whites at present.

If one were to adopt this approach of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, one would effectively veto all attempts to obtain more land, since few land-owners are prepared to relinquish their land. I really find it a strange approach, but I think the hon member Mr Lockey has dealt with this effectively.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also intimated here—he did not say it outright or spell it out—that because several farmers had considerable loans, the buying-up of their land would be a means whereby they could pay off their debts. Give me the name of any businessman in South Africa—whether in industry, in the commercial sector or in farming—who can conduct his business without loans. It is, after all, a normal part of a person’s operating assets to have loans or so-called debts. What every businessman ought to do, of course, is to ensure that his liabilities do not exceed his assets.

The hon member did not say with what bodies those farmers had negotiated loans, but I take it they were Government bodies. To speak about their loans now is irrelevant, since that is a normal part of any person’s business ventures. The question is, in effect, whether a person has a proper ratio of assets to liabilities. The valuation of these properties has nothing to do with the land-owners’ loans. The valuation of these properties is done in accordance with legal provisions by the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. They appoint at least two valuators from the private sector so that different opinions can be obtained. They appoint valuators from the private sector to value that land. The valuation is then referred to the Community Development Board in the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs.

That board consists of expert officials and also outside experts, and that board must assess whether the valuation is fair. The board’s valuation then comes to me and I decide whether to accept it and whether the land can accordingly be purchased. I cannot decide to give a specific person R100 000 more or less. If I think the valuation is incorrect, I have to refer it back and the process must begin from scratch. If there is any objection, and a person does not want to accept the offer, he can refuse to sell. He can then ultimately be expropriated, and if that happens, he is entitled to put his case in full in the Supreme Court or by way of arbitration. It is then not the Government that makes the final decision, but the arbitrator or the Supreme Court. So there is no possibility of anything fishy in connection with the buying-up of this land merely on the grounds that people have debts.

Of course, if a person is in a break-even position or nearly bankrupt—I suppose there are such people everywhere in the country—and his land is bought up, he will chiefly have to use the proceeds from that land to discharge his debt. At least he would then not have any debts, but he would not necessarily have any money to purchase property elsewhere. I can give hon members the assurance that several of the land-owners in Rust der Winter approached us—I also paid a visit to the area and they are progressive and prosperous farmers—and said we should buy up their land so that they could use the money, after having paid off their loans, to purchase land elsewhere and to continue their enterprises there. That is no more than fair. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition himself said that he could understand that this matter should be finalised as speedily as possible. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

Mr Chairman, if the hon member does not mind, I just want to complete my argument; then I shall listen to his question. [Interjections.]

I should like to speak about another matter which was raised here, and that is that large pieces of land are supposedly lying unutilised and neglected in KwaNdebele. We must remember that KwaNdebele is a national state which only came into being recently. Its historic nucleus is a small one. Almost like the Jews, the Ndebele have actually lived as a widely dispersed people, and when a national state was created for them, they “came home”, as it were, in large numbers to an area which had previously been the historic KwaNdebele area. The large-scale consolidation of KwaNdebele was announced for the first time in 1983, a mere five years ago, and a great deal of the land was only purchased subsequently. The land, which is apparently lying unutilised, is therefore land which has recently been purchased, and in many cases has provisionally been leased to tenants by the STC, land for which proper planning has meanwhile been done so that people can be settled there as individual commercial farmers.

We specifically want to prevent that new land that has been purchased from being taken possession of communally by a tribe on a tribal or communal basis, because that does not give rise to good farming practices. Hon members on the standing committee said as much to me, and I agree with them. We should therefore like to prevent this land from simply being taken over on a tribal basis, and that is why portions of the land have not yet been occupied. The planning of that land was, in point of fact, only completed last year, and now that it has been completed, the necessary funds have to be found to develop that land in such a way that it can be made available, in smaller units, to commercial farmers.

I want to give the assurance that after it has been purchased by the State, not one hectare of Rust der Winter land will be handed over to KwaNdebele before we have negotiated a proper agreement with them about how that very valuable land will be worked or managed; what schemes will be developed there; how individual farmers will be established, etc. If some of those farming ventures were to be conducted on a company basis, we would also want to know how that would be handled, for example, by the KwaNdebele agricultural company. We do not intend to hand over a valuable asset, which is productive at the moment, in circumstances in which it will lapse into unproductivity. The hon the State President has instructed that the economic productivity of land, when transferred to national states, should be maintained. I want to assure this House, and also the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, that we shall transfer no land before we and the KwaNdebele government have carried out proper scientific planning; before an agreement has been signed about how that land is going to be used and before bodies such as the STC or the agricultural company that KwaNdebele perhaps wants to establish, or other similar bodies, have been created to maintain the more sophisticated portions of those farming enterprises.

That land is not there solely to create subsistence opportunities for new land-owners; it should also grant job opportunities to workers. The workers there must also be in a position to work for both Black land-owners and the STC or an agricultural company.

I want to give hon members the assurance that this land will be utilised with great circumspection.

When we announced the consolidation of KwaNdebele for the first time in 1983, Rust der Winter was not included. This created the expectation that its exclusion was final. No guarantee was ever given, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition put it. I also explained this in the House of Assembly this afternoon. There was only the implication that because Rust der Winter had not been included, it was therefore excluded. So there was, in fact, a reasonable expectation, created amongst members of the farming community, that there would no longer be any meddling with the Rust der Winter land for consolidation purposes.

I can understand that when the Government eventually decided that it did, in fact, want to include Rust der Winter, this proved to be a disappointment to those people. I should like to make it clear, however, that when that decision was taken, there was proper consultation between the Government and the relevant landowners. It took place even before the first consolidation decisions were announced in 1983. Under the auspices of the then Commission for Co-operation and Development various proposals and maps in connection with the addition of Rust der Winter to KwaNdebele were circulated amongst members of the public and interested parties in the Witbank district. Meetings were held at which people could make relevant representations. Proper attention was, therefore, given to this matter.

It was, in fact, then decided not to include Rust der Winter.

Two years later, when the Government decided that it would, in fact, include Rust der Winter, there was another series of consultations before the final decision was announced. The final decision was announced on 25 September 1985. As early as 13 September, almost two weeks before the time, the then Deputy Minister, Mr Wilkens, informed the chairman of the farmers’ association about this. The next day he informed the KwaNdebele government. Thereafter the then chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, Mr Tempel, informed the farming community at a meeting in Rust der Winter, the town itself, about this. They were very dissatisfied. On the evening of 17 September I met their leaders. They handed me a comprehensive memorandum containing all their objections. I told them that we knew of the objections and that we had already heard them in 1983. Then they said they had not mentioned these objections in 1983; that these were new objections that I was to submit to the hon the State President and the Cabinet. The Chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, Mr Hendrik Tempel, and the officials spent that night going through all the old records, and he did not find any of the arguments, submitted to me that day, to have been new arguments which had not been placed on record in 1983.

We then re-submitted all the information to the Cabinet. The Cabinet endorsed its resolution. Let me therefore say that there was no question of any overhasty, arrogant or high-handed action. Technically speaking, the people in agriculture could perhaps have a case in the sense that we should perhaps have advertised the amended consolidation once more and should have adopted a long process of negotiation which would have taken weeks or months. In the light of the consultations in 1983, and the consultations of September 1985, we were of the opinion that we had acted reasonably by having announced the consolidation in that way at the time.

I think I have dealt with the most important arguments that hon members raised. I just want to mention one further point. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked for an assurance that we would not force the people of Bloedfontein, Geweerfontein and Kalkfontein to move. I want to give hon members the assurance that we have, in fact, made provision for the fact that if those three areas were incorporated in Bophuthatswana—they have traditionally formed part of Bophuthatswana—we would help to resettle the people who did not want to live there, in KwaNdebele. The KwaNdebele government has undertaken to help us in this regard. We shall, however, not force anyone to resettle. We gave this assurance in the standing committee, and I also want to give it here today. The area is not being provided with a view to forced resettlement.

In fact, forced resettlement is unnecessary in KwaNdebele, because people are moving there voluntarily in their tens of thousands. The towns in KwaNdebele are proliferating over the koppies. One can virtually see them spreading as the people settle there. That is a people that never had an area of its own, but now has obtained an area of its own as a result of the 1983 consolidation proposals when White land, in spite of the objections of Whites, was bought up in order to give the Blacks more land. The establishment of towns is taking place on a voluntary basis there. The establishment of agriculture, although still very limited, is also taking place voluntarily, and we want to promote this even further.

I want to thank the House for the thoroughness with which hon members have dealt with the matter and I want to thank hon members for their support of this scheme. I believe the scheme is in the best interests of a fair dispensation for economic growth opportunities for the Black population in that area and that it will promote sound relations among all groups of our society.

Sir, may I ask the hon the Minister why the land has to be bought from the farmers. Why is it not simply incorporated into KwaNdebele?

Sir, that is a very good question. I told farmers who wanted to remain in KwaNdebele and did not want to sell that they could exercise that option. I have the assurance of the chief minister that if there were farmers who wanted to stay, it would be made possible for them to remain in the areas. The farmers themselves will be given the choice of moving or staying.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition moves that Recommendation 2 of the report be recommitted to the standing committee.

Sir, with all respect, when the hon the Minister rose, I did so as well, as I would also like to make a contribution.

Order! I am sorry, but the request of the hon member is being granted.

I want to brush aside all the nice flowing words that have been sounded in this Chamber today and analyse the basic politic decision we are about to make here and now. That is what is important. [Interjections.]

*Sir, will you please request the hon member for Fish River to keep quiet today?

Order! The hon member for Fish River is not present in the House today.

It was the hon member for Northern Cape all along.

†What they are supporting here today is the creation of another homeland. That is what is happening and no matter what political eggdancing they do in support of this motion today, they are supporting the creation of a homeland. That is a fact.

In terms of the Freedom Charter, yes.

Do not quote the Freedom Charter to us, we know it. [Interjections.]

†Secondly, they are supporting the Group Areas Act.

Oh, come on!

Do not say “oh, come on” because certain people are going to be dispossessed like the people in District Six, South End in Port Elizabeth and North End were dispossessed. This is what is happening here. How does one explain the consent of this House to those people being dispossessed? The hon the Minister stated clearly that the aim was to create a regional government. The hon member Mr Muller asked the correct question: Why could these areas not be incorporated with the existing farmers who could then also provide the work? But no, I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the whole thing is based on skin colour, the thing that he objects to so vehemently.

Order! The hon member must please address the Chair and not the hon the Minister.

Thank you, Sir. They are supporting the very same argument the hon the Deputy Minister raised here against the implementation of the Group Areas Act, by agreeing to what is before the House today. Can any hon member deny that? An hon member in die Labour Party asked whether we were not increasing, in terms of the Group Areas Act, a group area for a specific group. All the political eggdancing by the Labour Party cannot deny the fact that they are agreeing today to the implementation of the Group Areas Act. In addition they are supporting the homeland concept and detention without trial of those who are opposed to the system in KwaNdebele. By implication they are supporting it and that they cannot deny. All those people who have been detained without trial and who are still in detention, all those people who have been curbed, by implication they are supporting that as well.

Sir, on a point of order: The hon member for Border says that we are also supporting detentions in KwaNdebele by supporting the report. Now that is not true.

Order! Will the hon member please confine himself to the subject under discussion? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would first like to congratulate the hon member for Dysselsdorp on the birth of his daughter. That is why he is so excited today. We can understand that.

†Mr Chairman, I repeat—and I am confining myself to the ambit of the debate—that by implication they are supporting the detention without trial of those who are against the incorporation of all KwaNdebele. [Interjections.] That cannot be denied. [Interjections.]

*It is a pity that the hon member for Haarlem is not present here today. Is the hon member present today? [Interjections.]

Order!

I just wanted to congratulate him on his birthday.

[Inaudible.]

I wish the hon member would take off his dark glasses. I want to talk to him, but I cannot see him!

†The essence is that group areas will be accepted if this thing is adopted in this House today. Whether hon members wish to deny it or not, it is a fact! If this thing is adopted, hon members will be in support of the homelands concept—which they have denied all these years. In fact, hon members have denied this for the past 21 years! They now wish to accept the homelands concept. [Interjections.] Hon members are by implication also supporting the independent states, which they have denied up to now. [Interjections.]

*Sir, if the hon member knows where Mitchell’s Plain is, may he enter into debate with me! He must rise so that I can talk to him! [Interjections.]

Order!

I want hon members on the other side to get up here today and be honest with themselves. They must stop the double standards which they are applying in the present-day South African politics.

I do not have double standards!

Mr Chairman, it is obvious that they have been caught off guard by certain members of the standing committee on the incorporation of this area. Today those hon members are trying to vindicate their position, much to the embarrassment of the rest of the members who do not believe in the homelands concept or detention without trial or the Group Areas Act.

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order: The hon member is misleading the House. It was not part of the LP component which supported this report. The whole of the LP component—to the last hon member—supported this report.

Mr Chairman, I was referring to the standing committee. [Interjections.]

Question put,

Upon which the Committee divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz T R George, F G Herwels, P A S Mopp, P J Muller, J A Rabie and C R Redcliffe) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

House Resumed:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz T R George, F G Herwels, P A S Mopp, P J Muller, J A Rabie and C R Redcliffe) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed.

Mr Chairman, I do not know whether I should deliver a very lengthy speech, because we have just come from a Joint Sitting where the hon the Minister of Finance took exactly three minutes to deliver his speech. Be that as it may, the Bill before us is very simply, as the hon the Minister of Finance said, an Appropriation Bill to cover the period from now till the main Budget is presented within the next four weeks.

It is heartening to note that the hon the State President devoted the major part of his speech at the official opening of Parliament to the economic issues facing this country. It is even more encouraging to note that the hon the State President has at last been persuaded that South Africa’s future economic prospects depend on a comprehensive economic strategy which the Government should pursue.

In his opening address to Parliament the hon the State President emphasised that the economic policy will be geared to increasing the growth rate with improved efficiency. One of the proposals mentioned was privatisation. Privatisation is in itself a very noble concept. The benefits of privatisation are enormous. One of the major benefits of privatisation, is that privatisation leads to improved efficiency in the organisation which will be privatised. The benefits of privatisation have been the major factor for the improvement in the state of the British economy since the time Mrs Margaret Thatcher began steps to privatise British industry in May 1979.

Whilst fully supporting the concept of privatisation I would like to determine whether the main reason for the Government’s privatisation policy is not primarily that of a money-raising exercise. The hon the Minister is on record as saying that South Africans are already very highly taxed and that tax revenue cannot be increased any further. To meet increased expenditure requirements in respect of housing, development and other infrastructures in certain areas, the Government needs more money. Furthermore, the hon the Deputy Minister has been quoted as saying that the Government will remain the controlling shareholder in enterprises that are privatised. I believe, however, that subsequently there was a press statement where the hon the Deputy Minister clarified this position. I hope that he will clarify this particular aspect still further, namely whether the Government will retain shareholding in parastatal institutions which will be privatised.

For the privatisation programme to meet with any success, there must be outright privatisation. The Government should dispose of its controlling interest and the private sector should be allowed to control these organisations by being in charge of all decision-making functions.

If partial privatisation is envisaged the Government will not achieve the objective of improved efficiency. Decisions will be made for political rather than economic reasons and there will also be resistance to partial privatisation by employees and investors.

Another factor for the success of any privatisation programme is that a formal time-table should be set from the outset. Each step in the programme should be determined and a deadline should be set for the implementation of that step. Privatisation can only succeed if it carries the support of the employees, investors and the public at large. The Government should commence with a full-scale publicity campaign to win the support of those concerned.

A lot has been said about deregulation. It was first mentioned by the Government some years ago. However, the Government has not proved its sincerity in deregulating commerce and industry. While certain minor amendments have been made the major stumbling blocks remain. One of these is the notorious Group Areas Act that has affected the so-called non-White community since its inception. Our traders are still not allowed to trade in certain areas. The opening of CBDs to all racial groups has still not occurred. In most towns and cities this hard-line attitude has not helped the economy of the country but it has certainly stopped several prospective entrepreneurs from making a positive contribution to the economy as a whole.

I would like to appeal to the hon the State President to remove all unreasonable impediments to free trade, be it the Group Areas Act or any other Act of Parliament. I know the hon the Minister will say in his reply that he has nothing to do with the Group Areas Act but it is part of the policy that is impeding the growth of the economy of the country and he is responsible for the economy of the country. He should therefore not say that it does not resort under his portfolio. He is an hon member of the Cabinet and he should tell the hon the State President that this particular Act and other discriminatory Acts of Parliament must be removed.

I now come to the matter of value added tax. The hon the State President announced that GST will be replaced by VAT. Whilst that may improve the collection of money if the indirect tax is retained at a high rate, it will increase the already enormous administration burden of the business community and the Directorate of Inland Revenue. Furthermore it has yet to be proved that VAT will improve collections.

I want to refer to paragraph 21.102 of the report of the Margo Commission. It states that when GST is compared to VAT, the rate of GST should be reduced and the system simplified by the elimination of exemptions and the exclusion of capital and intermediate goods from the base. It was recommended that the present GST system should be retained. The Commission only supported a move to VAT if the rate was not reduced to about 7,5 per cent or less. As the hon the Minister had already announced that foodstuffs would be brought into the VAT system, all that should have been done was to reduce GST to 7,5 per cent or less. The problem would then have been solved.

The Commission in its report recommended CBT or Comprehensive Business Tax in paragraph 29.30 of the report. The Commission stated the following, and I quote from paragraph 29.30:

It is therefore clear that VAT will not result in adequate reform of the tax system.

The hon the State President also spoke on inflation. One of the major causes of inflation is the persistent increases in wages and salaries. It is indeed welcome to note that the Government will be setting an example by having stated that there will be no general increases in wages and salaries this year.

The hon the State President deserves the support of the private sector in his fight against inflation. The success of the Government wage freeze depends entirely on similar curbs by the private sector. Prices of goods and services can only be kept down if salaries and wages are curbed throughout the economy. If the private sector ignores the hon the State President’s plea the public sector is likely to lose some of its highly skilled and experienced employees to the private sector which will move for higher salaries.

It is imperative that inflation be reduced as it is becoming more and more difficult for South Africa to sell its good to foreign markets. We are all aware of the importance of exports to the South African economy. With the present rate of inflation—the official estimate is about 14%, but I would say it is somewhere near 18%—our prices are increasingly very rapidly compared to those of our major trading partners who have inflation rates between 2% and 4%.

Despite the favourable rand-dollar exchange rate for our exporters our prices are no longer competitive to foreign market due to inflation. It is therefore very important that the private sector should support the hon the State President’s call to freeze salaries and wages.

In conclusion we would support the intentions of the Government to stimulate the economy and to achieve an acceptable growth rate. However, we appeal to the Government to set out a time table in which these objectives should be achieved.

Mr Chairman, I think this is the first time that I have seen a R16 billion okay given within minutes. I think all of us in all three Houses have a lot of confidence in the hon the Minister, his deputies and his whole department.

I will not take up too much time. The hon the Minister will have to take into account that although the economy has turned around in the major cities and urban areas the rural areas are still suffering from a lot of unemployment. In his wisdom I think he should look carefully into manpower. The need for job creation still exists. Perhaps when one flies from Johannesburg to Cape Town one does not notice anything, because one comes from one good place to another, but in the rural areas there is still a need for job creation for at least another few months until the economy picks up in these areas.

There is another area that I want to touch on—if I did not do so I would be failing in my duty. Accompanied by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, we went virtually around the country and we came to the conclusion—I think that everyone who went around with me will agree—that the farmers that live in the area on the other side of the Soutpansberg mountains are hardly making a living. They become the eyes and ears of the security forces. They live along the border and live in danger of losing their lives and property. However, they are there and when one goes around those places one’s heart goes out to them for the way in which they live and are struggling. I therefore implore the hon the Minister to give a sympathetic hearing to those people when they make their request.

As a member of the Opposition I want to state the facts that I observed over there and I really feel for those people. As I have said, they are the eyes and ears of the security forces who actually defend our borders and these farmers should be taken into account.

We all know that this is only bridging finance until such time as the three Houses debate and approve the main Budget. In the meantime the Minister should take into account the matters that I have raised and attend to them.

Mr Chairman, this Bill before us is in fact nothing more than a request from the hon the Minister to enable him to fund what I would consider the overrun of various departments and to finance the affairs of Government until such time as the final Budget is in fact approved, not only in this House but in all three other Houses.

Therefore I should like to begin by asking the hon the Minister exactly what the overruns in the various departments have been, if in fact they did occur. I think it was the hon member for Laudium who made a plea that there ought to be a cut in the rate of the tax applicable to, not only the indirect sales tax which will now become VAT, but also to the indirect income tax.

There is no denying the fact that South Africa is probably one of the most overtaxed countries in the world. If one looks at the figures that were released the other day, it was indicated that 53% of the Government’s revenue comes from income tax. In the last figures that were released an amount of R18 000 293,1 million was mentioned.

I should like to sound a word of warning to the hon the Minister and that is that when he does in fact take the route of switching from the direct sales tax to VAT, one of the consequences could well be an increase in the price of those essential foodstuffs which are not at present being taxed. I should like to warn the hon the Minister that this could lead to much resistance from all the people of South Africa, particularly from the lower income groups.

In that regard I should like to call upon the hon the Minister to implement subsidies or direct financial aid schemes to meet possible crises that may arise.

I should like to address myself now to an issue which is assuming large proportions within the South African community, viz the cuts that have been made to the university subsidies. Nobody in this House can deny, not even the hon the Minister, that if there is one thing that distinguishes this country from the rest of Africa, it is the fact that our universities turn out graduates whose degrees are held in very high esteem throughout the world. Nobody in this House can deny, least of all the hon the Minister—because I think it was he who also made that plea at some time—that one of the major problems facing this country is the lack of educated and skilled persons who are desperately needed to keep the engine-room of the economy firing away at full speed. Therefore I believe it is a cause for great concern and alarm that instead of increasing university subsidies, huge cuts have been announced.

I know that the hon the Minister will tell us that these have been in the pipeline for a long time, and that it has been done in consultation with the various principals concerned and the committee that has been appointed by the various universities, but the concern really is at the tremendous increase in the cuts that have been announced recently. Thus for example we have been told— and I do not know what the cuts in respect of the individual universities will be—that they range from something like 25% to 29%, and all hon members will agree that that is a tremendous cut.

The other point of concern in this regard is the fact that since the Government introduced the present formula for university subsidies, it has not kept its promises. I refer in particular to the University of Natal, where we have figures that tell a very sad story. For instance, in 1984 there was a 5% cut, in 1985 there was a 15% cut, in 1986 there was a 17% cut, and in 1987 there was a cut of 16%. Now we have a massive cut of 25% which amounts to some R26 million and is more than 10% of what the university had budgeted for.

The question arises: How is the university going to find all that money? The answer that has already been indicated by Government sources is that the private sector will have to fund that. That may well be the case, but to what extent can the private sector carry the can? When I look at the hon the Minister I say to him that we have no quarrel with his economy drive. I, too, agree that one cannot tax the public any further. However, I say to him that we must in fact apportion our budget now in such a way as not to tamper with the allocations to universities.

While we are talking about the universities and the allocation of budgets, I think perhaps that the argument that has been raised in this House and in other Houses is something that the Government should address itself to very seriously—I refer to the question of duplication of services. We know that we have various teacher training institutions, some of which are lying empty. Despite this we have to spend millions of rands creating other institutions when in fact we could share these institutions and by so doing save this country a lot of money. We know, for example, that where I come from we have the William Hartley School which had to close down because there were no students. Why can we not share facilities and why can we not apportion our resources as best we can?

Another question that arises in this regard is: Why do we have to waste considerable resources on the training of people to become teachers, for example when for instance, and the hon the Minister of Education will confirm this, there are many trained Indian teachers who have not yet been employed. I shall be asking the hon the Minister for more precise information in that regard. I know that not only are there many Indian teachers who do not have jobs; there are also many Coloured teachers who do not have jobs. The Government has spent vast sums of money training these people. All this money has been wasted at a time when the hon the Minister is engaged in an economy drive.

Finally, before I resume my seat—I am told I do not have too much time left—there is another issue I should like to raise here concerning many of us who come from Natal. I refer to the violence that has been eroding the community in the Natal Midlands.

I do not think there is any gainsaying the fact that there have been persistent and serious allegations in this regard that the police and, to a lesser degree, the Defence Force have been taking sides on this particular issue. I do not know where the truth lies. What I do know is that the time has come for an independent and impartial commission of inquiry to be instituted as soon as possible to establish the real causes of that violence.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may shake his head and say: “There the hon member for Springfield goes again, asking for another commission of inquiry.” I believe, however, that it is absolutely essential for all of us to realise and to know exactly what is going on in that part of Natal if we are to address and to find the solutions to those problems on a permanent basis.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Finance, in his Part Appropriation Bill, has been very very brief because he has asked for a very small amount until his final Budget, which comes before this House sometime in March.

I think the hon the Minister must address various problems as far as the main Budget is concerned. I think the hon the Minister must take into account some of the observations that have been made by the FCI, particularly on issues relating to unemployment, inflation, other matters far more important to the community.

Mr Chairman, on the question of unemployment the Federated Chamber of Industries has this to say:

Therefore unemployment is a very serious problem and the hon the Minister should address this particular problem when his main Budget is presented—not only to this House, but also to the other Houses and to the entire community.

The other serious problem is the high rate of insolvencies among small businesses, as well as business closures among the medium and large businesses, which have a particularly severe impact on the industrial sector. Once again, I believe this is a question of inflation. The hon the Minister could look into the various matters which have been put forward by the Federated Chamber of Industries. This is an organisation which represents all the various industries of South Africa. I think they know what is required for the communities and I believe that the hon the Minister should address the various issues raised by them.

Privatisation is another important issue. Soon after the hon the State President in his opening speech made certain important announcements concerning issues relevant to the economy, in effect one or two Government departments, like the SATS, published certain Bills in order to privatise some of their assets. It is hoped that some of these Government departments may save millions of rands. Road transportation, at present held by the Sats, is one sector where enormous losses are suffered by the Government. The hon the Minister should look into the road transportation system to see if it can be privatised. The Sats monopolises road transportation, yet it is showing a nett loss. The hon the Minister should be able to encourage many of these institutions, which operate businesses within the Government, in order to privatise such services. This includes the Post Office.

There are certain assets within the Post Office itself which could be privatised. Moreover, certain hospital services could also be privatised. Not long ago, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs also offered some of the toll roads for privatisation.

Not only would privatisation create more employment opportunities but I also think a great deal of savings could be effected on Government expenditure is concerned.

Mr Chairman, I should like to take the hon member for Laudium most seriously and heed his suggestion that we should attempt to follow the hon the Minister’s lead by being very brief. I shall therefore endeavour to be very brief.

I want to repeat what I told the hon the Minister last year. I want to ask him whether, when all these requests are made for funds for expenditure by the various State departments, he merely passes those applications, or whether he looks at them critically. I should like to believe that he takes a critical look at them.

Yes, I do.

If he does so, Mr Chairman, then I should like to ask the hon the Minister what happens to my aspirations when he looks at them critically. Does he view them purely from the White point of view, or from the point of view of the tricameral Parliament and all the constituent Chambers of that Parliament? Does he look at them from the point of view of what the various components of the tricameral Parliament represent, or does he view them merely from the point of view of the House of Assembly?

I am putting this question very directly to the hon the Minister because I should like to submit to him that those departments that are undermining our participation here; that are undermining the course of reform in this country; and that are undermining the aspirations of people of Colour, should be denied funds.

In making this statement, this particular article comes to mind: “Natal towns reject plea to open libraries”. Whilst there are a large number of towns in Natal that have opened their libraries, there are other local authorities which, because of prejudices, deny certain members of the public access to their books in a particular building.

Why does one go to a library? To increase one’s knowledge. It has nothing to do with conflict, racial tensions, etc. Yet some local authorities adopt the attitude that there should be libraries on racial lines. I say that the money the hon the Minister is administering does not belong to any particular race group. It belongs to the people of South Africa, regardless of their race, and he is a trustee administering the money of the people. In that particular situation, those local authorities who wish to be insular in their thinking should not be subsidised. That would soon solve that problem. Why should the money of the people be used against the people?

I want to ask the hon the Minister something else, and I should like an explanation. He must forgive me for being a little critical this afternoon. In his speech he spoke about R11 million less …

R11 billion.

No, it says own affairs.

Yes, R11 billion less than total.

Less than the R24 billion appropriated in the Part Appropriation Act of 1987?

Yes.

I should like an explanation for that.

It was up to October 1987, and this goes up to July.

Fine, but I shall let the hon the Minister explain why that figure has been reduced. I am not an economist. The hon the Minister of the Budget may be an economist. I bow to his superior knowledge about the economy.

I want to come back to the question of own affairs and general affairs, to which I think my colleagues have made reference. In this regard, hon members from both sides of this House have expressed themselves in no uncertain terms, for this has nothing to do with party politics. I think that what I articulate here represents the feelings of everybody in this House. One will not achieve much only by freezing salaries. It will probably just stall the situation. What we need to do, is to stall the triplication and the quadruplication of services, thereby creating false kind of employment opportunities with taxpayers’ money by expanding the bureaucracy. That is what we must be addressing.

I have the clear and distinct impression that most of us came to the tricameral Parliament to use it as an opportunity for rationalisation and talking to our White counterparts, to change attitudes and make people realise that Indians are no different from Whites, that we can live together in harmony and administer together. I give these two races merely as an example, but the entire issue was to change attitudes to people of colour. However, after coming here, I see that, rather than moving towards rationalisation in administration and in the executive of this country, we are getting an expansion of the bureaucracy and of own affairs concepts.

I would like to say to the hon the Minister that the solution will not be the freezing of salaries. What we want in this country is productivity, and the only way we will get productivity from the masses of the country, ie our Black brothers and sisters, is by giving them opportunities. If they perceive and feel that the Government’s reform programme includes some mobility which will help them to share in the economic cake of this country, one will get automatic productivity. However, for such time as they feel denied and unwanted in the structures of Government, and are made to feel like juveniles, one will not get productivity, and I do not blame them for it. Again the issue is a political one. I know the hon the Minister will say that this falls under another department, but I do not think the departments can work in isolation. I think the issues are totally interwoven. Therefore I say to the hon member for Laudium, who spoke of the freezing of salaries that it is not the solution. The solution is to create the opportunities for greater productivity in this country. That is what we should be dealing with.

On the other hand, where the hon member is right, I want to agree with him. I believe that what the hon member for Laudium said on the question of privatisation, namely that the mass of the people should be involved in any privatisation programme, is laudable. I agree with him. The privatisation programme must not be for the benefit of the monopolies which already exist in this country. It must be for the socio-economic upliftment and participation in the economy of the country of people of the lower echelons. They must be drawn into the economy of the country. I am not an economist. I speak as a layman, from what I consider to be the perception.

I also want to avert to another aspect. I find this rather strange. I think the hon the Minister should take this most seriously. We have a Department of Constitutional Development and Planning handling certain aspects of work which directly affects the economy of this country. Let us take the question of concessions in the decentralised areas, in the growing-points, etc. I speak from experience. I come from Stanger, and when that town was identified as another area where certain concessions were available to people, there was movement. There was mobility. Employment opportunities were created and people took advantage of these. Whether it was right or wrong in theory is another matter, but the idea was to create employment opportunities. There was much activity and interest for industrialists to move in. As soon as it was announced a year or two ago that these concessions would be withdrawn as of the end of February 1988, there was a complete lull. People are not interested any more. The situation is now that whilst representations are being made by the local authority to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning for the concessions to continue, an inquiry is going on.

I believe that the concessions should remain until such time that the inquiry is finalised. I would like to submit that on the withdrawal of these concessions one will have a great number of unemployed persons again. It is completely counterproductive. It was probably wrong in the first instance to create these concessions and these decentralisation programmes, but having introduced these programmes their withdrawal will harm the economies of these particular regions.

I feel that it should fall directly under the department of the hon the Minister because it deals with economics. I would therefore like to ask the hon the Minister—and I am serious about this because the livelihoods of persons are involved here—that he should use the good offers. I am using the opportunity offered by this debate to appeal to him not to create the impression of employment and growth on the one hand and a great deal of unemployment on the other hand. This situation should not be allowed to develop and I have written to the hon the Minister concerned for his intervention in this matter. I would like the hon the Minister on whose shoulders the economy of this country rests, to play a meaningful role.

In conclusion, I would like to submit that without political reform in this country—and it must be reform that is acceptable to the people of this country—all our economic programmes and even the relative growth that we now foresee will come to nought.

Mr Chairman, I would like to comment on the speeches of hon members this afternoon. First of all, let us be practical in our approach in relation to the unique situation in which South Africa finds itself. Unlike most of the Western countries where the economy is such that it can withstand the heavy expenditure in relation to what we call in South Africa a “First World and a Third World situation”. With regard to that particular situation, South Africa not only has a responsibility to its own people but it also has a service responsibility to the whole Southern African region. I therefore believe that the finances of South Africa definitely play a meaningful role in the economy of Southern Africa, side by side with the requirements of South Africa itself.

The hon member for Stanger, the hon member for Laudium and the hon member Mr M Thaver put forward the argument in relation to work opportunities that the South African situation demands the creation of more job opportunities and we are ad idem with such contributions. However, in addition to the State playing its role in the creation of job opportunities there should also be a joint venture on the part of private enterprise. Private enterprise is not necessarily inhibited by Government Statutes to the advancement of the industries. We have perfect examples in South Africa where the State gives incentives to industries for their operations and establishments and these incentives are in my opinion as an industrialist and in the opinion of other industrialists, definitely incentives for job opportunities for the jobless in this country.

The State and we as Parliamentarians have a responsibility in that we should not allow devious methods to be employed to exploit the situation of incentives. This is a worrying factor and I recall one particular instance where industrialists imported plastic shoes into the country. Import permits were easily available and they imported plastic shoes from countries in the Far East. No duties were payable on these but the shoes were then converted into something else in this country, and this is not permissible.

These are the devious methods that were employed by some of the industrialists and as a result of the clampdown on these methods a particular industry found itself out of existence. That created the unemployment problem.

When one needs to speak about unemployment and the private opportunities of this country and there is particular emphasis on and reference to privatisation, then I say that in this country we now have the momentum of workers’ unions. These unions are vying with one another to gain membership and as a result the demand made on employers is such that the employers are being exploited. When there is competition between two rival unions one wants to show that it can achieve more for the worker at the expense of the employer and that definitely is damaging to the employment situation. I would therefore say that in the private and State sector we should be careful of the way we exercise joint ventures and act in the industries for the mutual benefit of all.

I think the hon member for Laudium made the point that capital goods for the country should be exempt from any kind of duties and I need to remind my colleague the hon member for Laudium that at present it is so that industries enjoy exemption from any form of taxes for industrial purposes. The CBD is being discussed. We should wait until a thorough and proper study of the Margo Commission Report has been made and the State has reacted to this report. I do want to say that those of us who have experience of VAT as against GST know that VAT does not necessarily mean that there is going to be extra work in relation to collecting funds. It actually means—and my colleague the hon Minister of Finance will elaborate further on this—that from the source of manufacture or production onwards taxes are added and that is VAT. That is value Added Tax until the consumer gets to the end where he also has to bear part of the tax responsibility. I think that the hon the State President’s announcement on VAT should be welcomed by South Africa because it will definitely be in the interest of South Africans as a whole.

Much has also been made about inflation. In all countries inflation is considered in all estimates or budgets. Inflation is a factor that is considered and no country escapes the inflation factor. South Africa also takes the inflation factor into full consideration and I am sure that my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance and the Treasury will have delved into the situation thoroughly and properly in relation to this issue.

Very recently I was in Saudi Arabia which is a kingdom where the Minister of Finance presents his budget to the King. The King who is their called the Keeper of the Holy Mosque of Medina and Mecca announces the budget.

In the case of the Saudi Arabian budget for this coming year the expected budgeted expenditure is exceeded by 30 billion Saudi riyals extra vis-a-vis their income. However, Saudi Arabia is in such a very happy situation that all the petrol dollars of yesteryear are coming in so that they can well afford to carry the deficiency of 31 billion Saudi riyals. It would amount to about 1,8 riyals to the rand. So it would be about 12 billion South African Rand. This is the situation obtaining in a country which has so much financial resources. However, there is an announcement that expatriots of Saudi Arabia are now going to be taxed. Therefore, anywhere in the world where one gets these services, where one enjoys the benefits of the country, one needs to pay partially towards the expenditure of that country.

I want to deal briefly deal with the hon member for Stanger who referred to duplication or triplication of expenditure. Let us really sincerely ask ourselves whether, without the kind of system at present operating, we would not have been at a disadvantage if we did not have the Ministers’ Council to render the kind of service that we have always cried out for. At one time we shouted at the Minister of the central Government at the time. Now that we are busy with the exercise itself, are we not in a position to say to ourselves that, with regard to community services in particular, this is what we require. In fact, it is no good saying to us that there is duplication and triplication when in effect we have also cut down in respect of bureaucracy.

What about the wastage of resources?

Sir, I do not think one should call it wastage. In fact, it is a service and an advantage to the State to give the service that is required.

I also want to deal very briefly with the present upturn in the economy in South Africa. As from September last year there has been a definite trend in the upswing of the economy. I believe that this upswing is to a large extent due to the dedication of the State to the interests of the country and its people. In my opinion the private sector is also playing a very important role because there is now diversification in their industries and they are now becoming more and more export-orientated. I believe that that industries that will be export-orientated will definitely be in the interests of the economy of South Africa.

Last but not least, I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, for bringing forward this Part Appropriation Bill. I want to say again with reference to the hon member for Stanger that when the exercise is done in Treasury for the overall requirements each own affairs department is being dealt with, and therefore there is no such thing as the hon the Minister of Finance willy-nilly making an amount available for each House. It is an exercise of the department in each of the Houses in relation to their requirements.

Mr Chairman, I want to welcome the hon the Minister of Finance upon his first speech in this House. We want to express our appreciation to him for having provided the necessary funds for this beautiful building. I am sure that with the type of experience we have had from 28 August 1984, we will do justice to our presence here, notwithstanding matters on which the media appear to have been capitalising during the past seven days.

There is no doubt about the fact that economic upliftment and constitutional reforms are inseparable. One cannot do without the other. There can be no constitutional development if the economy of the country is not sound. Angola, Zambia and Mozambique are classic examples. We are in a very important era in our country, in which the ability of our Minister of Finance and the economists of this country will be taxed to the utmost.

I was present at the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba when they were finalising their deliberations and somebody asked: Work out the cost of implementing the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba proposals.

I think we must show tolerance and understanding for the problems of the Ministry and the Department of Finance, because in this day and age, Black aspirations are being expressed very, very strongly. We have introduced a new principle in respect of the allocation of resources, and that principle is that resources should be directed towards where the greatest need exists. I think that if we apply that principle to the letter, not only in theory but also in practice, then the have-nots, the people of the Third World—they comprise to a very large extent the majority of the Black population in this country—will have to derive the benefits of the decisions of the Ministry and the Department of Finance.

Of course, the private sector will have to play its role, and not only the public sector. Here I am concerned not only with privatisation—I think that was very ably expressed by various speakers this afternoon—I am concerned about the promotion of the informal sector. I think that if we do not take the bull by its horns; if we do not do something meaningful and allow people at the local level—that is, local authorities—to carry on in the direction they are following at present, there is surely going to be disaster.

Coupled with the promotion of the informal sector is the question of deregulation and the promotion of small businesses. South Africa’s salvation lies in the encouragement, the growth and the promotion of the informal sector, and this actually means encouraging small businesses on a bigger scale.

Very few people realise—they lay the blame at the door of the Government—that it is the municipalities that will have to create that infrastructure for the growth of small businesses. Let us take a municipality such as Durban, and ask the Small Business Development Corporation to tell us honestly whether they are getting infrastructures from large municipalities where there is a large concentration of the population. This does not only refer to Durban—it concerns other municipalities as well. I was told recently that the Small Business Development Corporation required land. The land was available, but the price asked by the Durban Municipality, as well as the conditions imposed, were beyond the reach of the people whom the SBDC wants to assist.

There was a very important discussion this afternoon on job creation, employment opportunities etc. The level of education of all race groups in this country is rising. As a result of this rise in the level of education, more qualified and educated people are now coming onto the job market. If we cling to the old idea of petty—shall I say— apartheid at the local level, we shall not be able to assist people who want to migrate in the areas where there are employment opportunities, nor shall we be able to provide the infrastructure so that they will be enabled to make use of, or take advantage of, the employment opportunities.

In my capacity as Chairman of the Minister’s Council I am sometimes frustrated when we want to make use of under-utilised facilities. For example, some members of a community recently orchestrated the refitting of a school that was about to close down when we expressed our desire to take over that school. I do agree that we must avoid the duplication of services. Sometimes we are worried about the lack of financial resources in order to provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure for growth. However, the City Treasurer of Durban recently announced that they have approximately R200 million in their reserves. Yet when there was a complaint about the lack of facilities on Durban’s beachfront it was indicated that they have the money to provide for that, but they do not have the necessary funds to provide the necessary services for their own community—those that have been under their jurisdiction for generations in this country.

Mr Chairman, I am glad that I am here today and I wish to express my appreciation to my hon colleagues for sending me messages of goodwill after my mishap while entering the Westridge Park stadium on Saturday. I also want to mention that the National People’s Party has had its ups and downs but it is strong. Looking around here, I am expressing the sentiments of every member of the NPP present and also those associated with the NPP. We must accept that people can draw conclusions and we do know what the facts are. I am not complaining about the PRP, because they were not capitalising on our internal problem. To Solidarity, and especially its national chairman and its hon leader, who is not present and which is why I will not go into great detail, I wish to mention the dictum: Do not interfere with the domestic affairs of others and do not capitalise on it. To a man the hon members on this side of the House will not allow them to do so.

I wish to appeal to journalists to get a balanced picture of the proceedings of this House. I wish to single out the Sunday Tribune. I have no complaint about the factual content of their reporting, but they must also know that there are many parties and many speakers in this House. I appeal to one specific person who is a stringer—and I hope that Sapa takes note of this. He lives in Mobeni Heights and was unsuccessful in becoming a member of the President’s Council. He actually sent news reports throughout the country about utterances which my colleague, the hon member for Isipingo, never made. These are this journalist’s own conclusions. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should not link what this man has in his narrow mind to what is actually happening in this political party. He is a political baby. They at least could have brought him here so that he could put his challenge, facing us. They had their opportunity and they missed it. Solidarity is dying because of its lacklustre performance—reflected in the debate on no confidence in the Cabinet, when one hon Minister asked questions to which the hon Leader of the Official Opposition answered yes each time. They should not now try to find fault with the NPP to cover their own lack of performance. Nobody is perfect.

I felt I should place on record that I feel the time is now ripe. There was an article in the main body of the Sunday Tribune which completely ignored our contributions. As to the person who is disseminating news to Sapa, I hope Sapa and the Sunday Tribune will bear all these things in mind.

My warning to the national chairman and the leadership of Solidarity is that if they are going into political bankruptcy due to their own performance, they should not try to shift the spotlight from their own inability to be of service to the people by trying to find a so-called weakness on our side and presenting a false picture that they are gaining ground.

I now want to state on record that this party will not go down. [Interjections.] When I say that this party will not go down …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether, in view of what we have just heard from him, he can explain to this House how it was that the majority party in this House was unable to secure the nomination for the vacancy that existed last week?

I want to tell the hon member for Springfield that he should go to the archives of the Geographic. There he will find an article written by a certain person, called “The Professional”. According to that article we on this side of the House have the finest and shrewdest political tacticians of this time, whom you will never be able to match. [Interjections.]

As you are aware, Mr Chairman, this is my first speech in Parliament, and I am aware that in terms of Parliamentary tradition a member’s maiden speech is a non-controversial one. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the life of an Indian in this country that does not involve politics, and politics is always controversial.

Before I proceed, Mr Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to thank those people in the electoral division of Tongaat who voted me into Parliament, as well as those who opposed me. Through their joint efforts they have demonstrated to this country and to the rest of the world that participation politics has a very important place on the agenda of this country’s future growth and development into an apartheid-free country. The tricameral Parliament is a part of the process of participation politics. It is not by any means the ideal but it is nevertheless something along the path to the ideal.

Tongaat has a special place in the history of the community. It was here and in neighbouring Verulam that Mahatma Gandhi left his stamp on the politics of the Indian people, and when the first elections for the tricameral Parliament were held in 1984 the current Natal Indian Congress—

I would use the term “revived congress”— claimed Tongaat as its constituency. As a result of its boycotts and its negative and obstructionist politics—including intimidation politics—there was a very low poll. However, the Tongaat by-elections of November 1987 demonstrated very clearly that the Indian people have faith in the tricameral system, not as an end in itself but as a means to the realisation of a just and fair place in South Africa for all people. They rejected the sterile politics of boycotts and nonparticipation as engaged by the Natal Indian Congress.

Having made these preliminary observations, I now refer to the Part Appropriation Bill. Finance is the major problem in the lives of all peoples, countries and governments, and no less so in the lives of ordinary people, especially in relation to their livelihood. General sales tax has been, and still is a crucial infliction on the poorest of the poor in this country. The poorest of the poor, Sir, are to be found among the Black people, the Coloured people and the Indian people. Those people are being taxed without being represented.

On the occasion on the official opening of Parliament on 5 February this year, the hon the State President announced in his opening address that GST was to be replaced by VAT, or Value Added Tax, and in support of the proposed change he referred to its use in the Western countries.

This reference to the Western countries might well create the impression that VAT is a most fair and just system. That is not correct. The Western countries, the First World countries, are wealthy. In England the people do pay value-added tax, but they also have national health insurance, known as the dole. An Englishman can live very comfortably on the dole. In South Africa it is impossible for the non-White people to survive without working. The difference between VAT and GST, with some exceptions, is that the final consumer will not see that he is paying a special tax. With GST he knows that he is being fleeced. With the value-added tax system he will not know that he is being taxed.

I make the humble plea to the Government please not to tax the food and clothing of the poor, but to tax the food and clothing of the rich by all means. By all means tax imported fancy pink salmon, but in the name of all that is decent and human do not tax a can of South African fish and brown bread, the food of the poor of this country. I just give these two examples.

Mr Chairman, I thank this House for the opportunity afforded to me to launch myself into parliamentary politics.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon member for Tongaat who has just been elected to this House. I offer my congratulations and hope that he has a long and distinguished career in this House and this Parliament. He very fittingly made an appeal on behalf of the poor of our country, those people who are very often least able to vocalise their concerns, problems, fears and needs, and for that we salute him here today. If that remains his interest in life, namely to represent the interests of those people who are least able to defend themselves and their position, I think he will certainly maintain the respect of his constituency and he will earn the respect of this House and his colleagues in this Parliament.

As far as GST is concerned, I want to say to the hon member for Tongaat that it is fitting that he speaks to us at a time of tax reform. I do not want to anticipate what the White Paper to be issued in the weeks ahead will have to say about tax reforms, but one principle is certainly fundamental, namely that we in South Africa have limited resources. If we genuinely want to help genuinely poor and disadvantaged peoples, we must take those limited resources we have and apply them and concentrate them on those people who need that help. In other words, we will have to cut with a scalpel, not shoot with a shotgun. We will have to apply the resources we have to the defined needs of those people who definably require assistance.

The hon member mentioned the example of GST on fresh food. The reality is that GST on fresh food is a tax advantage which is enjoyed also by the rich. The proverbial Mrs Oppenheimer also gets tax-free meat, fish and so forth, but I do not think she requires it. On the other hand the very poor, the poorest of the poor, to whom the hon member referred, are people who often do not have refrigerators and are not able to buy these fresh products, and therefore have to buy tinned products which do in fact carry a tax. There are iniquities in the current system, but insofar as it is possible, we will try and recommend a system to this Parliament which is neutral, fair and which will allow the Government not to use the taxsystem as a welfare system, but will allow us to collect money efficiently so that, in a democratic way, money can, where possible and necessary, be directed at the needs of the genuinely disadvantaged.

I also want to say to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that we share his view. It underlies everything the hon the State President said a week ago, namely that it is absolutely fundamental that if we are to have constitutional reform and social advance, this must rest upon a sound and growing economy. These things are absolutely inseparable and we must therefore try and have the most productive and efficient economy and try to provide opportunities to the widest possible number of people in our country.

Again, we have limited resources in South Africa and we are not able to help everybody that we would like to help. However, what we can do is to help everybody that we possibly can help. Instead of hindering other people we should roll the obstructions out of the paths leading to their self-development. That is why we have a policy of privatisation and deregulation.

I rise very specifically also to respond to the hon member for Laudium who opened the debate. He said that I should explain what we mean by privatisation. I want to say to him that I am probably one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the privatisation policy in this Government. Privatisation is privatisation is privatisation. We are enthusiastic about the policy of privatisation, we want to hurry the policy of privatisation along as quickly as we can and we want to get the most productive use possible of our capital resources in South Africa. We do not want the Government to crowd out the private sector in this country. We want a small Government in South Africa and we want to reduce the role of the Government. We want to take the Government out of the lives of people in South Africa, we want to increase economic opportunities and we want to follow a policy of inclusion in South Africa. But just as I have said that privatisation is privatisation is privatisation, it is also true to say that a monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly whether its Christian name is state or private. In any situation where one deals with monopolies and where one has a transition process the public will always be entitled to checks and balances to protect the public interest. That one has in private monopolies and in Government monopolies.

As far as we are concerned, we enthusiastically want to promote the policy of privatisation as quickly as possible. As was said in this House, we cannot do anything else in South Africa unless we get the economy right. That is why there is now a greater emphasis on economic management. That is why we have come with a comprehensive package which is an economic plan. That is why we have set ourselves upon this important path. It is a process that will take years but we will very soon see positive trends emerging from it, particularly now that we have the weight of the hon the State President behind the Government’s comprehensive commitments. There is a realisation of the centrality of the economy to the welfare and the future of the country—hon members have made mention of it.

The Government and the hon the Minister of Finance have introduced—and the hon the State President has endorsed it—discipline in Government spending. It will be easy to judge us because there will be many signposts by which the hon the Minister of Finance and other hon Ministers can be judged. We can be judged in the Additional Appropriation Bill. My colleagues, the hon the Ministers concerned with posts and telecommunications and transport, can be judged when their Budgets are put to the House. The various Ministries of State can be judged as they announce their Budgets in the general Budget which will follow later in the year. We will therefore be able to measure the progress of the Government’s commitment and I can promise the House that we have a total commitment to this programme.

I do not want to say very much more. The hon the Minister of the Budget referred to the problem of the plastic shoes that are imported and then converted. The cost of this is below that of importing the raw materials to South African. The hon the Minister will know that that is why the Board of Trade and Industry intervened and introduced special tariffs to obstruct this alleged malpractice from taking place in our country. There is an obstruction against goods entering the country and tariffs are raised against them. An urgent study is being done at the moment and an interim decision will be taken later, probably in June of this year. If this type of abuse exists it will be removed and a long-term policy for the shoe industry will be announced.

What if the shoes come from Turkey?

I was not aware of that fact. If I am not mistaken, I think the biggest problem was shoes from the Far East. I might just say here that it is a complicated problem because some of the Arab countries in the Gulf have their own petrochemical operations where they are producing vast quantities of this very low grade plastic as a by-product in the process of refining oil. This they then sell at cut-rate prices. Basically they are looking for markets for the petrochemical by-products and not for the manufactured products and that is why one finds this kind of distortion emerging.

However, I want to tell the hon member that the Government shares his concern and is currently busy with such a study and within a matter of months it will also come up with long-term solutions to these problems in the shoe industry. It is doing so in co-operation with the shoe industry in South Africa generally.

I thank the hon members for their support.

Mr Chairman, I should first of all like to thank my hon colleague for the kind words at the beginning of his address when he welcomed my colleague and I. This is the first opportunity that we have had to rise in this particular House.

According to the Indian custom you must give a nice gift of a good budget. [Interjections.]

The gift that I shall present to this hon House is to ask my colleague to come and have a cup of tea with me and we can talk about his budget.

I must say it is quite an experience to rise in this House. It has a very unique atmosphere and is a very intimate Chamber. It is a place where one really feels personal contact with everybody who is in here. To me it has a personality; it is not a cold place.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the kind words of welcome. I also wish to thank hon members for their support for this particular measure. The rules of Parliament provide for an extensive debate on this particular issue which in effect is a minor administrative issue.

The Part Appropriation Bill is nothing but an administrative measure in order to enable us to carry on with those functions that have already been started. This money may not be used for new functions. In other words there is really no new issue involved and yet according to the existing rules we have to have quite an extensive debate on it. Nevertheless hon members used this opportunity to cover a wide range of subjects and I shall do my best to respond to these as adequately as I possibly can.

I want to thank the hon member for Laudium for the positive remarks that he made. I concur with most of what he said, but as is usual in life I want to spend more time on what we disagree upon than on what we agree upon. Let me say however that I do appreciate his support for privatisation and I am in full agreement with him on how we should handle it. There will be a lot of responsible planning on how to handle the privatisation programme, and there will also be a carefully worked out timetable because my hon colleague and all the other hon colleagues who have followed up on the State President’s speech have emphasised that in planning privatisation—and particularly in ultimately offering the shares for sale—one should be very cognisant of what the prevailing circumstances in one’s financial markets are. One should not dump shares, but one should be very careful about how one goes about privatising particular firms. Also, my hon colleague reiterated the whole question of monopolies and we shall also have to take everyone’s interest into very thorough consideration at that stage.

I now want to differ by saying that it is not at last that the hon the State President has finally accepted the importance of the economy.

I think, what has happened now, is that for the first time in many years the hon the State President has devoted the major portion of his opening speech to economic affairs. That certainly is a first. However, that does not mean that in the deliberations of the Cabinet and of other forums, economics and our financial situation did not receive the extremely high priority that it rightfully deserves in the agenda of the State President.

In our particular case privatisation is indeed also a measure to raise capital. That is one aspect thereof. The hon member correctly referred to one other aspect, namely that one will notice a major increase in the efficiency of the various institutions. However, there is another point that I want to stress, and that is the question of broadening the tax base, in other words involving more taxpayers and a greater number of businesses in the taxpaying population of the country, thus broadening the tax base in order to ultimately lower the tax base as far as possible.

Did not all of us in this Parliament experience in the last number of years of sharing responsibility in this regard the effects of narrowing the tax base, in particular when it came to GST and the results which materialised in higher rates? That we all saw. For every exemption one makes, narrowing the tax base in the process, one increases the pressure on the rate and ultimately one has to increase the rate in order to still exploit that particular source of revenue sufficiently. Otherwise we will have to take tax from another source in order to compensate. Fundamentally the Margo Commission has also told us to keep the tax base as broad as possible in order to keep the rates as low as possible. Privatisation is also aimed at involving as many as possible businesses enterprises in South Africa in our tax base.

I want to come back to the question of raising capital. This is obviously a point which critics of the privatisation process have latched onto, accusing us of just generating more cash for Government expenditure. I repeat, privatisation is part of an overall strategy designed to bring into balance our revenue resources on the one hand and our demands on the other hand. If one analyses the speech of the hon the State President carefully one will see a repetition of the yardstick, namely that of returning the budget to affordable limits; these affordable limits being determined, firstly, by maximum exploitation on a fair and broad basis of the tax system and, secondly, by what one can borrow on the basis of proper ratios.

Let me deal briefly with the concept of raising capital. At one time it was necessary to invest public money in certain enterprises. It was an absolute priority at that stage. One of the best examples that we can take is one of the institutions that the hon the State President has referred to, namely Iscor. At the time it was necessary to invest public money in Iscor in order to get South Africa’s steel industry off the ground, because we did not have a steel factory at that stage. Now, after many years, having established itself properly in South Africa, having won certain export contracts over all these years, having properly diversified the range of products it manufactures, it is time for us to consider the reapplication of public money invested in the steel industry. Now the public can fully own that enterprise, whatever the outcome may be.

However, the fact is that private-sector money can go into that enterprise, and the capital that can be released in this way, can now come back into the system and, on the basis of priority, be allocated to meet some of the urgent and pressing demands for capital expenditure that we have in our country today. Is that not a sensible way to allocate one’s resources? Quite honestly, I think it is beyond any reasonable criticism. Every reasonable person will understand the basic sense of that approach.

At the same time, as the hon member for Laudium said, we can improve efficiency while looking after the competitive situation and in the process broadening the tax base.

The hon member said that the Government had not yet proved its sincerity as far as deregulation was concerned. It was also pointed out that the municipalities are, in many instances, the levels of authority where deregulation has to take place, or where it can really be promoted. I think that Government has gone out of its way to encourage people who are being hampered and inhibited by what they deem to be unnecessary regulations, to come forward and say that a particular regulation stands in their way, and ask that it be removed. We have given the hon the State President the powers. Why should our public not respond properly now and come forward and tell us how to handle this situation better?

The hon member referred to the Group Areas Act. I want to give him back the reply he gave to me. We could talk for days about the Group Areas Act. There are certain advantages that I see in the Group Areas Act …

There are more disadvantages.

…which some of the hon members may refuse to acknowledge in this Chamber, but I am aware that many critics of the Group Areas Act have also seen some of the advantages it has.

I have enough to battle about with the hon member; I need not pick a fight with him about the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] Let us talk about finance when it comes to this particular debate. [Interjections.]

The hon member made an important point with regard to VAT. He said, if I understood him correctly, that introducing VAT was not sufficient for the overall tax reform envisaged by the Margo Commission. That is fair comment, since CBT was in fact designed to provide that extra bit of leeway so as to enable the tax reform process to be greatly accelerated. The fact that we have not been able to introduce that but are, instead, going the VAT way to replace GST, will mean that in a certain way, our ability to introduce all the other reforms that Margo envisaged will perhaps be delayed.

He also made a very sound point, and that is that salaries, wages and prices should in fact also be restricted throughout the economy, or else our package will not work. Now, Sir, I want to emphasize today that what the hon the State President referred to was not a wage freeze. I would like to urge the hon member for Springfield to cut that word out of his vocabulary. There was no talk of a wage freeze, and what we are experiencing is not a freeze; a freeze is something where everything goes stiff and nothing yields.

Send him to Iceland!

That is not what happened. There is a considerable degree of leniency with regard to notches and specific adjustments. There has been no wage freeze.

He is misunderstanding you.

Indeed, I think so.

I want to emphasize that this is only part of the package. The Government has not yet responded to the anti-inflationary package or report submitted by the Economic Advisory Council. I want to remind hon members of that. In other words, what has been done so far addresses a particular aspect of the overall strategy against inflation. There are many other aspects that also have to be addressed. In this particular case the hon the State President has addressed the question of salaries, wages and prices, and he has indicated the very delicate interrelationship between these variables.

There are also many other factors relating to inflation. There is the question of our exchange rate and there is our monetary policy with regard to its ultimate effect on interest rates, as well as fiscal policy in its broader context. Therefore I want to emphasise that this aspect addressed by the State President is not intended to be the Government’s full answer to the whole question of inflation. It is only one aspect and the rest of it will be addressed in the course of this year when the Government’s response to the Economic Advisory Council’s anti-inflation report is further dealt with. I would urge the hon member not to design his own inflation rate, because as a member of Parliament he has certain credibility. There are two things I would not like to see happen: I would not like to see the public confused by the wrong information, nor would I like to see that hon member’s own credibility destroyed. I have too much respect for him and I wish to advise him that the inflation rate for the past calendar year was about 16,7%. However, in the month of December it was in the vicinity of 14%. What is so promising about this is, that the production price index, which is a harbinger of the consumer price index, was substantially down towards the end of last year. This is most encouraging. There is no question that the inflation rate was never near 18% on the average during last calendar year, nor is it anywhere near it right now.

I do thank the hon member for Southern Natal for a valuable contribution. In responding to hon members we obviously should devote more time to those points upon which we differ. It is just natural. That hon member’s contributions are always appreciated. He correctly said that there are certain geographic areas where the economic upswing has not yet brought about tangible improvement. Unfortunately there are also certain sectors of the economy where development still lacks. However, like other hon members he referred to unemployment. I am afraid that despite the fact that we had a real economic growth rate of 2% during last year and that we hope to achieve a 3% growth rate this year, it is still inadequate to meet the demand that we have for the creation of employment opportunities. As we have argued before, we still very much suffer from a too high rate of growth in our population. It grows by 2,3% and, as the hon member so correctly argued on many an occasion, unless we can grow in excess of 5% we shall take an awfully long time to catch up on the backlog. On behalf of the farmers who live on the other side of the Soutpansberg I would like to thank the hon member for his words of sympathy for their plight as a result of the drought. The hon member correctly defined this Budget as only bridging finance, which is exactly what it is.

I would like to say to the hon member for Springfield that this Budget is not financing an overrun in respect of certain departments having spent more money than they should have. That is the Additional Appropriation Bill with which we will be dealing shortly. It is a continuation of activities financed in the previous financial year, to be financed again this year, until such time as we have approved the Budget, which will then also include the financing of new services.

I do not agree with the hon member that South Africa is probably one of the most overtaxed countries in the world. I am not, by any means, implying that we are undertaxed. I think the individual is overtaxed in the overall composition of our tax base. We have said that very often, and Mr Justice Margo has concluded that in his commission of enquiry. He has concluded that the individual’s contribution is inordinately high. However, Sir, the IMF said—I think it was two years ago—that they did not consider South Africa’s tax burden to be all that heavy. Nevertheless, we are now in the process of drawing up the White Paper. We shall shortly submit it to Parliament and then we shall have a great deal to talk about as far as the tax base and the new tax system are concerned.

That hon member, as well as the hon member for Tongaat, referred to the taxing of basic foodstuffs and said that this could hit the lower income groups. The hon member for Springfield called for a subsidy of some kind. Now, Sir, this is a basic concept in our economy, and I appeal to hon members in this House that we should stand together on this issue. As my hon colleague has said, we should not use the tax system to alleviate the plight of people or to achieve certain social benefits. We should rather get our tax system into shape in such a way that we can collect most of the taxes, which would then enable us to identify where the need is greatest and to give assistance only where the need is greatest. If one makes use of one’s tax system to do this, then one helps people one should not be helping. I am speaking from memory now, but I think the Margo Commission concluded that in the vicinity of R1,6 billion in tax was being lost as a result of our exemptions whilst only R300 million or R500 million of that amount was really going to the needy people. That is certainly not the intention.

We should rather collect our tax and then identify needy people and assist them in the proper manner.

The hon member referred to the cuts in university subsidies. First of all, that is a matter that will be debated in the coming Budget and therefore I should not like to expand on it and say more than has already been said. It is necessary for my colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, to notify the universities in advance of the Budget being tabled as to what their subsidies will be, and it is from that point of view that the debate has developed thus far.

I just want to remind hon members of how we administer the Budget nowadays—how we compile it and how we manage it. We work on the basis of priorities and we are refining that system. Hon members will learn more about it later during this year. However, the administration of the education Vote serves as the best example of how we would like to see our Budget properly managed. That is to say, we identify a certain percentage of our Budget for education, and that is where the role of the Minister of Finance ends. For example, that percentage may be 17,5%, or whatever. The Minister of National Education then has his specialists. He works in conjunction with the Ministers of Education in the various Houses. He sits down with them and they then divide up that portion of the Budget that has been allocated to them on the basis of their educational priorities.

The formula.

Yes, they use various formulae, and so on. We could design some very fancy formulae, but the basic fact is that we must be able to afford them. Unfortunately, we have had to adjust our average projected economic growth rate downwards over the past number of years, which precluded the possibility of adhering to that formula to the fullest extent. Therefore, in the educational environment, it was necessary to reduce their subsidies and I think they have responded very, very responsibly in the sense that they are embarking upon an imaginative rationalisation process. After all, it is also necessary for us to ensure that we obtain the best possible return on every cent invested in education. I am afraid—and I have here a quote made by the hon member—that it is not possible to apportion our Budget in such a way as not to tamper with university subsidies.

Unfortunately we have to tamper with everything, adjusting it to a lower base of expenditure and in the process we are still rearranging our priorities.

As far as the violence in Natal is concerned, I am aware of a statement of my hon colleague who is really responsible for trying to make a contribution to stabilise the situation there.

The hon member Mr Thaver spoke about unemployment. I think I already referred to it before. Unfortunately the nature of our growth-rate is such that we are not in a position now to employ all the unemployed people, not even all the unemployed teachers.

He referred also to the high rate of insolvencies. I think fortunately that trend has been reversed of late. Again we see companies and closed corporations being formed. Unfortunately that is not as much in the news as the situation was when there was a great degree of insolvency.

The hon member expressed support for privatisation and he went as far as saying that all business services should be privatised. I think that is a pure evaluation of the whole process. I think if we come to debating this matter, we can be sure of his support, because he has obviously understood what privatisation is all about.

Referring to the hon member for Stanger, I do not think that I or my advisers or colleagues are deaf to the aspirations of people when we allocate funds. The hon member made a sweeping statement, which he then based on a very small bit of proof, in regard to libraries. I understand his irritation with allocations to libraries being done on the grounds as he explained it, but I want to say to him that that particular issue is handled by local affairs committees and the various provinces. When we allocate Budget money from the Ministry of Finance, we do not take into account that so much money will go for books. We allocate the Budget on a macro-basis. However, I understand the hon member’s frustration. I certainly will carry his message of today further. [Interjections.] If the hon member wants to ask a question, he is welcome.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister aware of the fact that apart from the books themselves, there is massive subsidisation of a capital nature, with taxpayers’ money, as far as libraries are concerned?

Mr Chairman, I am aware of it, but I have said that I will look further into that matter.

The hon member also referred to the freezing of salaries. I trust that he will also forget that term, because it is not appropriate.

The hon member referred to the so-called duplication of services. I would like to differ from the hon member. Own affairs does not see a duplication, to the extent that some people seem to perceive it. It is simply factually not true. After all, certain services have to be rendered in certain geographic areas. That is the way South Africa is constructed right now. I cannot just accept that simply because we have various administrations carrying out the same kind of duties we are necessarily covering the same areas. We are serving specific communities and from that point of view we cannot really talk of a duplication.

I thank the hon the Minister of the Budget for his support. He has also responded to many of the points made by hon members and I certainly appreciate his support in that regard. I certainly also appreciate his support for the establishment of an export-orientated upswing.

My hon colleague the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council dealt with the political issues in the way that he wanted to. He made some important points about our overall philosophy and I think I responded to that when I said that when we start apportioning the proceeds of privatisation we shall have to go where the greatest needs are to be found and that certainly covers all the communities and geographic areas of South Africa. In this whole process the private sector will certainly also be able to play an additional and supportive role.

I congratulate the hon member for Tongaat, and I share in my hon colleague’s wish that he will have a rewarding parliamentary career. He certainly caused quite a stir in winning that particular seat. We hope that he will make as valuable a contribution in the House. However, I have to differ with him in that it is not possible when one sells foodstuffs and clothing to distinguish between the rich and the poor. When it comes to a tax concession for the poor when buying there will be no wealthy person in South Africa. [Interjections.] We can say that very authoritatively from a taxpaying point of view. However, I think I have responded earlier to the principle of the hon member’s speech.

I conclude by thanking hon members for their support. I promised the hon member for Reservoir Hills that I would take a question from him at a later stage and I will do so now.

Mr Chairman, I actually have three questions related to privatisation. Firstly, is the hon the Minister aware that in the USA they talk about Reaganomics, in the UK they talk about Thatchernomics, but in this country we have to say economics? We accept that because we cannot say Du Plessisnomics.

What about Bothanomics!

Secondly, does the hon the Minister foresee that some of the excess liquidity which institutions had and which we used for purposes of mergers, takeovers and corporate raids could very well now be used in a perfectly legitimate way by the industries to be privatised. As a consequence of that, if some of that liquidity is …

Order! I regret to inform the hon member for Reservoir Hills that the time for this debate has expired.

At 16h56 business interrupted in accordance with Rule 45 (1) (c).

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Order! On Thursday, 11 February, I intimated that I would reconsider the whole matter of the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ referral to the C J Pillay incident and his explanation thereof as well as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s appeal to the Chair. At least two newspapers carried reports on the incident over the weekend. To my mind the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council justifiably claims that this matter has caused him embarrassment and has harmed his image.

In the circumstances I think it is apt that the hon member for Reservoir Hills apologises to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I now order the hon member for Reservoir Hills to tender an apology.

Mr Chairman, I repeat that I made no implication and no allegation against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I deliberately disassociated myself from the feelings of the person concerned. I regret that there is nothing for me to apologise for and I therefore have to decline to apologise.

Order! I once again appeal to the hon member for Reservoir Hills to heed my order to apologise to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman, with complete respect to the Chair, I regret I am unable to do so.

Order! I request the hon member for Reservoir Hills for the last time to think about this earnestly. This is a serious matter. He should give this matter his serious consideration and heed my order to apologise to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman, as you are aware, last Thursday I read to this House a statement which I had in fact prepared in the Chairman’s Chambers. I thought it would conclude the matter.

I am not responsible for anything which appeared in the newspapers. I do not write the newspapers. If any member of this House is caused any embarrassment I do not want any person to be embarrassed for no just cause. I do not think that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is entitled to be embarrassed as I do not think that there is any just cause for him to be embarrassed, but I regret under all these circumstances it is just not possible for me to apologise. My conscience would not permit it as I have not done anything which warrants an apology.

Order! Mr P T Poovalingam, in the circumstances I have no choice but to name you.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that the member was given an adequate opportunity and that in terms of the rules relating to Parliament you have named the member, I move:

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz Bandulalla, M; Dookie, B; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Razak, A S) appeared on one side,

Motion agreed to.

The Chairman thereupon called upon Mr P T Poovalingam to observe the resolution of the House and to withdraw from the precincts of the House.

Whereupon the member withdrew.

Order! My attention has been drawn to the fact that certain members at the Joint Sitting have been walking in whilst the Speaker was addressing the House. Hon members are asked to refrain from that practice.

I also wish to request hon members of this House to refrain from walking about whilst the presiding officers are addressing the House. I request each and every hon member kindly to co-operate and to observe this long tradition of Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I move: