Mr Speaker, may we on this side of the House just tell you, to start with, that we are glad to see you back in harness again and that we wish you a full recovery.

Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker, it is without relish that I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (1) expresses its displeasure at and disapproval of the way in which the Acting Speaker (Mr Z P le Roux) discharges his official duties as presiding officer in general, and in particular his actions on 10 February 1988 in—
   1. (a) naming the honourable member for Lichtenburg (Dr the Honourable F Hartzenberg); and
   2. (b) refusing to hear members of the Opposition on points of order; and
2. (2) censures the Acting Speaker in his capacity as Chairman of the House of Assembly because he distributed by mail in the electoral division of Pretoria West a political propaganda document entitled “Inligting uit die Parlement”, dated November 1987 and signed by Adv Z P (Rex) le Roux, MP, Chairman of the House of Assembly, on the official letterhead of the Chairman of the House of Assembly with the official stamp of the House of Assembly,

and accordingly calls upon him to vacate his offices as presiding officer.

I do this in the full realisation of the seriousness and the exceptional nature of this step. The Acting Speaker is named in the motion, but in fact also in his capacity as Chairman of the House of the Assembly. For the purposes of this motion no distinction is necessary between the two offices. What is true of Mr Speaker is also true of the Chairman. What applies to the one, applies equally to the other.

This highest office in the South African Parliament is, as its name indicates, a legacy from the British House of Commons of the Westminster system. Kilpin (p 146) states:

If he had lived today, he would probably have been able to add:

The Official Opposition, on whose behalf I am dealing with this motion, is, as has been said, fully aware of the serious and extraordinary circumstances that are required for such a motion to be moved. Neither I nor my party may flinch from that; on the contrary, we would be guilty of seriously neglecting our duty to Parliament if we did.

For this statement I need quote no better authority than Dr D F Malan. In 1937, in this House, he seconded a motion of one of the members of the then Opposition, Advocate C R Swart. I quote Dr Malan (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 30, col 5598):

What is it that the Official Opposition should keep a watchful eye on? Once again I want to refer to Kilpin, and in fact to his book Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa. I have the third edition here, and I shall quote from page 146 the passage under the heading “Origin of the Speakership”:

After that dramatic incident there could be little question as to the ultimate independence of the Speaker as the spokesman of the House.

I now skip one sentence and quote further from the next paragraph:

Nearer home, Advocate C R Swart, as a member of Dr D F Malan’s Opposition party, also spoke about this matter in the debate to which I previously referred. I quote what he said on 28 April 1937 here in the House, and I refer to column 5593 of Hansard:

Later on, in column 5594, he says:

If I am now to answer the question I have put, the Official Opposition must keep a watchful eye, not only on the rights of individual hon members, but also on equal treatment for all, regardless of persons; not only on democracy, with which the whole developmental history of the Speaker’s office is interwoven, but also on free speech in this Place.

In all fairness I want to say that we fully appreciate the tremendous demands that the office of Speaker, and also that of Chairman of the House, make on those who hold those offices.

Just remember that during elections too!

To preside over a meeting such as this is no trifling matter.

Oh, I think that was an inappropriate interjection. There is no fixed, written rule stating, as the hon member tried to imply by way an interjection, that I must remember that when an election takes place. Never in the history of any of the parties in this House has it ever been a fait accompli that that was something that applied to elections. According to the writings of May and Kilpin too, it is in fact something that happens from time to time, but it is not a rule that is binding on any party.

I said that to preside over a meeting such as this was no trivial matter, all the more so when the Government is strong, has been in power for a long time and, specifically for that reason, becomes all the more autocratic and increasingly tends to usurp and erode the powers of this Place. [Interjections.] And when, in addition, those who occupy the highest offices in this House—I am now referring to the chief leader of the NP and the provincial leaders of that party, and in particular to the two leaders of the largest provinces—are not unknown for their arrogance and a tendency to impose their wills, we are that much more aware of the heavy demands that must be met by chairmen.

It is with increasing concern and unease that we have, in particular, observed the hon the State President’s onslaughts on the Chair, whether consciously or unconsciously, and it was with similarly increasing unease that we have observed the present Chairman of the House of Assembly’s inability to resist the temptation to please the Government side.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to say that the hon the State President was guilty of an onslaught on the Chair?

Order! Would the hon member just repeat what he said and then continue. When I have obtained clarity about his utterance, I shall interrupt him.

Sir, I said that it was with increasing concern and unease that we have, in particular, observed the hon the State President’s onslaughts on the Chair, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Order! To what occasion is the hon member referring?

Sir, I am referring, for example, to instances in which the hon the State President used unparliamentary expressions such as “you lie” and was then not ordered to withdraw such statements by the Chair.

Order! Did it happen during this session?

No, Sir, not at all during this session.

Order! The hon member is going too far. He is not within the ambit of a Speaker’s ruling given in this House, and the hon member must withdraw that reference to the hon the State President.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member may continue.

Say “sorry”!

Order! I, not hon members, will maintain order in this House. If I have told an hon member he may continue, other hon members may not try to give a ruling on that. The hon member may continue.

In our opinion, particularly in maintaining order during the more turbulent debates, the hon gentleman has in his leniency inclined far towards the Government side and has not, as far as we are concerned, in the process properly applied the rule that “justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done” and the rule of equality “under which all members are regarded as being equal”.

As far as the events of 10 February are concerned, and specifically the naming of the hon member for Lichtenburg, it is our submission that the Acting Speaker (a) in applying Speaker Greeff’s ruling, neglected to distinguish between the two capacities in which the State President functions, i e that of head of state and that of head of government; (b) was guilty of a major error, particularly on the basis of Speaker Greeffs precedent, by naming the hon member for Lichtenburg rather than applying the remedy provided by Standing Order No 113. Standing Order No 113 provides:

We suspect that the Acting Speaker acted as he did under pressure from members of the executive authority, pressure he should have withstood, but was unable to.

We also submit—this is point (c)—that his ruling that the hon member for Lichtenburg not only had to withdraw a specific statement, but also had to apologise to the hon the State President, was in conflict with the hon member’s statements and the conventions and rules of this Place, and a transgression of his powers.

I now want to deal with the position of the State President. The State President of the Republic of South Africa has two capacities in which he functions, i e that of head of state and head of government. As head of government he is entitled to enter this House, to be a participant in the proceedings in this Place, to give his opponents a tongue-lashing, to transfix them with a penetrating stare and to take part in the political struggle across the floor, but is then also obliged to give an account of his stewardship. The man who chooses to do so must then also be prepared, nolens volens, to be treated as an equal of other members, as was the case with the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] He can therefore be censured and also impeached.

Order! On 4 September 1986 Speaker Greeff gave the following ruling in the House. I shall repeat it for the hon member’s information, although I am aware of the fact that he himself quoted it a while ago. (Hansard: House of Assembly, 4 September 1986, col 11519):

I am of the opinion that the hon member, by saying that the hon the State President transfixes members with a penetrating stare and by also referring to his tongue—I cannot remember the precise words—comes within the ambit of this ruling and should withdraw the relevant sentence.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: That is precisely the point that the hon member for Soutpansberg is discussing, a matter we shall argue out with this House, i e that the State President functions in two capacities. He elected to remain Leader of the NP and of the NP’s caucus, and at one stage also of the NP in the Cape.

Order! What is the point of order to which the hon member for Brakpan wants to refer?

I want to point out, Sir, that the former Speaker’s interpretation, which you quoted, was pre-eminently directed at the State President as head of state and not as head of government.

Order! In the relevant part of his speech the hon member for Soutpansberg specifically referred to the hon the State President’s conduct in the House in his capacity as State President and not as political head. My ruling is that when an hon member refers to the State President within this House and to his conduct in the House he must refrain from making any remark that could fall within the ambit of the provisions of a previous ruling of Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, that is precisely the point of order I raised. The moment the State President enters this Chamber to participate in debates, he is a head of government and not head of state.

Order! I listened to the hon member, and I am not prepared to conduct a debate on the relevant point of order. I am clear in my mind about the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition’s argument, but I do not agree with the hon Chief Whip that when the hon the State President enters the House he is, as such, a political figure and no longer the State President.

In my opinion he can enter the House, take his seat and participate in the proceedings of the House, and it can be clearly apparent, from his conduct within the House, whether he is acting purely as head of state or as a political figure. I am not prepared to give a ruling conceding to the hon member that when the hon the State President walks in here he is here automatically as a political leader.

That is the point on which we must understand one another, and in that spirit the hon member for Soutpansberg must abide by the previous Speaker’s ruling. In this context I ask for his co-operation. I do not want to restrict him; I merely want us to maintain good order.

I am not speaking about the hon the State President now; I said I was dealing with the position of the State President and not the position of the serving State President or a person. I am referring to the office of the State President.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg must not underestimate the intelligence of the Chair and in the process refer to the State President’s transfixing eyes and to his tongue. That has nothing to do with the overall position of the State President as such.

In this regard I am specifically moving towards the ruling in this connection by the previous Speaker, Mr Greeff. The State President of the Republic of South Africa functions in two capacities; that of head of state and that of head of government. As a head of government he is entitled to enter this House, to be a participant in the proceedings of this Place—I think so, I do not have my ipsissima verba—to give his opponents a tongue-lashing, to transfix them with a penetrating stare, to take part in the political struggle across the floor, but then also to give an account of his stewardship.

Order! I originally understood the hon member to have referred to the State President as head of state, but the hon member is referring to the State President as head of government. The hon member may continue.

He can therefore be censured and also impeached—I think those were my last words. He cannot claim protection which would indemnify him, in discharging his duties as head of Government, against the scrutiny of Parliament. I am quoting from what the previous Speaker said in this regard on Thursday, 4 September 1986, but since you have just quoted it, I ask that it simply be incorporated.

If one looks at Mr Greeff s pronouncement, one sees that on each occasion he does, in fact, emphasise the words “head of State”. On page 319 of the Minutes of Proceedings of Thursday, 4 September 1986, it is stated:

In his second last sentence he states:

He completely avoids any reference to his office as head of government.

I want to quote another authority in this regard. In the old dispensation, when the State President was only the head of state, he did indeed enjoy the protection of the Constitution. Section 13 of the Constitution of 1961 provided:

At that stage the amount had been increased to R10 000 from an original amount of R2 000. The new Constitution of 1983 dropped that provision altogether. It was omitted from the Constitution of 1983. It is on that basis that we argue along these lines. The hon members on this side of the House who were members of the select committee which investigated that Constitution will also tell you, Sir, that this provision was specifically omitted from the Constitution because of the fact that the two offices of head of state and head of government were to be consolidated in the new Constitution. As a result the new head of state cum head of government was not afforded the statutory protection which was granted to the head of state when he was solely the head of state.

In any event, one is now dealing with the first State President in the new dispensation who specifically has to give substance to this office in its combined form and who, by his example, will possible, to a greater or lesser extent, determine, or at least influence, the behaviour of succeeding State Presidents. Therefore I respectfully want to say that for a great deal of time to come these aspects will, in fact, be subject to a process of development which will also be helped along by debates and events in this House. That is what we can expect.

I now come to the contentious portion of the hon member for Lichtenburg’s speech. He was dealing with the allegations of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives. I am not going to quote the entire speech once more, but I think there are relevant portions that should be emphasised. The hon member for Lichtenburg quoted that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives had said:

The hon member for Lichtenburg then said the following:

Then the hon member for Lichtenburg went on to say the following:

I want to repeat this short passage, because in my view it embodies the tone and the spirit of his speech. He said:

He then went on to state:

I emphasise the word “suspect”, Mr Speaker:

I emphasise the word “probably”:

Here the hon member ended his argument on this point. Then the hon member continued with his speech for approximately one typed Hansard page.

I think the subsequent course of events was more or less as follows: I think the hon member for Yeoville went tip-toeing across to the hon the Minister of Justice and whispered something in his ear. The hon the Minister of Justice, in turn, went tip-toeing over to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and whispered something in his ear.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, they went tip-toeing over. At that stage … [Interjections.] I do not know whether the Acting Speaker’s attention was focused on the movement taking place or whether the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning attempted to do something. I confine myself solely to what is recorded in Hansard. The hon the Acting Speaker then said:

The hon member for Lichtenburg answered as follows:

The hon the Acting Speaker replied:

The hon member thereupon continued with his speech. Then the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stood up and said:

The hon member for Lichtenburg denied that. Thereupon the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said:

The hon member for Lichtenburg then said:

What did the hon member for Lichtenburg actually say? I shall now deal with this on the basis of the fact that the Acting Speaker suspended him.

[Inaudible.]

With the cases I have won I have kept myself here. I have had quite a bit of success as far as that is concerned. I shall meet that hon member at a suitable place if he would be prepared to lodge a complaint.

I come back to the hon member for Lichtenburg’s speech. He said: “I suspect …” The word “suspect” is not a substantive allegation of facts.

The word “suspect” says “I think” and “I am uncertain”. The hon member acknowledged that in his mind there was an element of uncertainty; an unproven element, a rebuttable presumption. He said: “I suspect, however, that the hon the State President is doing nothing because he knows it is true.”

Does the hon member know it for certain?

The hon member also said: “He cannot institute an investigation, because the investigation would probably …” The second word he used is “probably”, not “most probably”, not “definitely”. Once more he introduces the element of uncertainty, and he acknowledges it. He therefore qualified his statement in the debate with the word “probably”.

That is the statement of the CP’s. [Interjections.]

That was not in any way the case when he commenced his speech. That was the first time he had referred to the matter; then he said: “I suspect …” In other words, he acknowledged that to his way of thinking there was no certainty. He did not say “I believe” or “I know” or “I am certain”. He said: “I suspect …” Secondly he said:

When an objection was lodged by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the hon member said the first time:

After being interrupted for second time, he said:

I want to submit that the use of “afraid” in this specific sense implies the fear of uncertainty and not the unparliamentary sense of the word.

You are tip-toeing past the truth! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Innesdal cannot tip-toe any more, of course, because his figure does not allow him to do so! [Interjections.]

Order!

This speech by the hon member for Lichtenburg was a serious matter, and in the course and tenor of his speech he …

Scandalous conduct!

It was not a scandalous speech. It was one of the best speeches made in this Place, because he referred to scandalous remarks made by an ex-Minister of the hon the State President’s office in regard to hon members of this House. Should he have kept silent about it? [Interjections.] It is not to all the hon members of this House, but only to hon members on that side, to whom the former Minister and present hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives was referring. What did he say? He said they had received a bribe. Do hon members know that in terms of Section 10 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act the giving and taking of bribes, for the purpose of influencing legislation, is a crime? That is the seriousness of the allegation Rev Hendrickse made in regard to the hon members of that side of the House.

That accusation of his is so serious that we would have expected the hon the State President to take immediate steps, because that is how we have come to know him. He is quick as lightning when it comes to taking steps. What did he do, however, immediately afterwards, when inquiries were directed to him? He referred the inquiries back to Rev Hendrickse.

The hon member for Lichtenburg did not make an unparliamentary statement. He did not say, for example, that the hon the State President “knew” what was going on, for example, saying “it is an untruth and the hon member knows it”. He said he “suspected” and that it was “probable”. He therefore acknowledged that he did not have any certainty about the matter.

You are now quoting from his explanation and not from his speech.

Does the hon member for Jeppe want to make a speech?

Order!

In his chambers the hon the Acting Speaker considered the hon member for Lichtenburg’s speech. Firstly he found—this is my conclusion because the point raised by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was one of breach of privilege— that there was no question of a breach of privilege. We do not say this gladly, but with regret: To satisfy and oblige the NP and its leaders, and in anticipation of the hon member for Lichtenburg’s reaction, he decided to adopt the procedure prescribed by section 114, i e to name the member. That is the procedure which, in its degree of seriousness and singularity, is exceeded only by a motion of censure in a presiding officer.

Mr Speaker, as far as we are concerned, the hon the Chairman of the House of Assembly, the Acting Speaker, erred in adopting the naming procedure, and my colleague, the hon member for Brakpan, will also address you on his error in not adopting the precedent created by Speaker Greeff. Immediately after his ruling Speaker Greeff took action against a member, quite simply ordering that member to leave the House for the remainder of the day in accordance with Standing Order No 113.

I now come to the points of order which form the second leg of the first part of our motion. Standing Order No 114 deals with the naming of a member, while 115 indicates what procedure should subsequently be adopted. Between the naming of the hon member and the motion of the hon the Leader of the House, on the part of the Official Opposition and on the part of the PFP efforts were made to raise points of order. Standing Order No 114 provides that the Speaker may name a member. Standing Order No 115 then lays down the procedure after a member has been named. It reads:

In other words, there must first be a question before the House, and that question must be the motion of the senior Minister in the House: “That … (the member named) be suspended from the service of this House”. Only once that question has been put, does this prohibition in respect of debate or amendment come into operation. My submission is that the Speaker may never refuse a point of order.

In the relevant case those taking the points of order—according to the rules one may anticipate a point of order—were ready and waiting, specifically because of the provisions of Standing Order No 115, to take the points of order before the hon the Leader of the House moved his motion.

Order! Is the hon member of the opinion that a point of order can be raised even after the question has been put?

No, Mr Speaker. I would say, however, that an hon member can take a point of order in connection with the putting of the question. I am not saying this with reference to this debate, but just in passing. Let me mention to you the example of a debate involving Mr Strauss or perhaps Mr Harry Lawrence which, if I remember correctly, took place in 1954. In one of those cases the hon member was never named by Mr Speaker. He merely said: “I name the hon member.” I suggest that in such a case a point of order may, in fact, be raised after the motion has been moved. I am merely mentioning that in passing.

In the case under discussion here, between the procedure applicable in terms of Standing Order No 114 and that applicable in terms of Standing Order No 115, hon members of the Official Opposition attempted to raise a point of order. The hon the Acting Speaker erred in not taking their points of order.

The points of order we would have raised were specifically that he had taken Speaker Greeff’s ruling too far, allowing it to include the head of government too, and secondly, that in the case in point the naming procedure was too strong a procedure to adopt.

Sir, there are precedents, created by Speaker Peel, which I do not want to burden you with now, occasions on which a Speaker magnanimously acknowledged in the Chair that one of his rulings was in error and allowed the situation to be remedied in a different manner.

We charge the hon the Acting Speaker with having erred in that he decided finally in his office about what to do, anticipating the hon member for Lichtenburg’s reaction, and we know that discussions were held with him about that. He has thereby placed in question his quasi-judicial position, which specifically comes to the fore in ruling on points of order, and is one of the functions of the Speaker mentioned by Erskine May.

I now come to the second aspect of my motion with regard to the postal item which the hon the Chairman of the House of Assembly distributed. The letterhead is not that used by ordinary members of Parliament, but the official letterhead of the Parliament of the RSA, specifically being the letterhead of the Office of the Chairman of the House of Assembly. The document is in the form of an information document. It is signed by advocate Z P (Rex) Le Roux, MP, Chairman of the House of Assembly, and is titled “Inligtingstuk uit die Parlement”.

There are three sections. The first deals with groups areas …

It is an official document.

It is an official document, as the hon member for Barberton has said. “Groepsgebiede” is the first heading, “Die KP en onttrekking” is the second heading and “Die NP staan sterk” is the third heading.

In the portion dealing with the CP reference is made to the CP in very strong political language. Amongst other things, it is stated:

Hear, hear! That is true.

I knew they were going to say: “Hear, hear!”, Mr Speaker. Let us see who withdraws whence in a few weeks’ time.

You people are withdrawing everywhere, from the television debate too.

It is stated further:

So it goes on. “Die KP glo nie meer aan afsonderlike ontwikkeling nie”, the Chairman of the House of Assembly tells his voters. “Hulle glo net aan afsonderlikheid, sonder die ontwikkeling. Met die mond word dr Verwoerd bely, maar hoe lyk dit met die dade?” So he goes on.

And it is true.

Can he write that as Chairman of the House?

We do not dispute the right of any politician in this Place to communicate on a political level with his voters. Kilpin discusses the various qualities of Mr Speaker. The third quality, which he mentions on page 147 of Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa, is “absence of bitter partisanship in his former career”.

As far as I am concerned the hon the Chairman of the House could have used an MP’s letterhead. He could have had it duplicated at his own cost, which I take it he did, in fact, do. He could also have dispatched it to his voters at his own cost. Then I would not have crossed swords with him. However, he abused his office as Chairman of the House in the House of Assembly, and he also misused the letterhead of the Chairman of the House in the House of Assembly, thereby violating his position of neutrality in this Place. Thereby he did, in fact, violate his impartiality, which he ought to display at all times and guard as he would some treasure, casting a reflection on both himself and his impartiality in this Place.

Did you people oppose him in party politics?

Yes, we did. Of course we did.

He is the Chairman of the House in the House of Assembly, and it is in this capacity that he wrote the contentious letter; not in his capacity as Acting Speaker, but in his capacity as Chairman of the House in the House of Assembly. In this capacity he used the letterhead, dispatched the letters and, we believe, also made use of the franking facilities.

The hon the Chairman of the House in the House of Assembly has been a member of this House for a very long time now. He is a legal man—a very competent one. He knows what bona fides is. He also knows what uberrima fides is. Mr Speaker, it is my submission that uberrima fides can be demanded of the Chairman of the House in this Place, particularly as far as the use of facilities is concerned. His neutrality and impartiality is not to be distinguished from that of you yourself, Mr Speaker. With regard to this specific document— I am not going to elaborate on that any further— he unfortunately has used the position of his office for party political purposes. And he did so vigorously.

Mr Speaker, I want to conclude by referring to the fact of the improper franking of these postal items by the hon the Chairman of the House of Assembly. The hon the Chairman furnished an explanation about this. I should like to accept his explanation. I nevertheless have problems with three aspects. Firstly I have a problem with the fact that he does not tell us how many postal items he dispatched. Secondly he does not tell us how much money he paid in. I do, however, also have a problem with a third aspect of his explanation. I am referring to the fact that he said he had made the payment on 10 February. This letter is dated November 1987. The hon gentleman said he had made the payment before he was aware of anything from our side. I find that difficult to accept, but I shall leave the matter at that. Then, however, the hon gentleman must just give me one explanation, and that is why he delayed in this matter from November 1987 to 10 February 1988. Against the background of his circumstances, his office and the knowledge he has, and also the discipline he has to exercise in regard to other hon members, why did he wait so long before he realised he had made a mistake and before he took the necessary compensatory steps?

Mr Chairman, I am not going to attempt to deliver a long, learned address or to move hon members to tears by using Kilpin and other sources. I think the facts before us are reasonably clear, and in my opinion the whole matter under discussion can be divided into four categories.

The first is the Official Opposition’s attitude to the authority and dignity of the Chair, and I shall deal with that in the amendment I shall move. Let me begin with that. I want to quote three examples as reasons for my argument that despite the eloquent speech of the hon member for Soutpansberg, the Official Opposition does not uphold an exemplary attitude in respect of the authority and dignity of the Chair, to put it mildly.

I contend that there is an element of wilfulness in this motion. Let me ask the hon member for Brakpan, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, whether the Official Opposition submitted a complaint to Mr Speaker in respect of the conduct or rulings of the Chairman of the House at any time before this.

I shall reply to that.

They introduced a motion which not only complains about the Acting Speaker’s ruling on what happened on 10 February, but extends further than that. They say they want to express their displeasure at and disapproval of the way in which the Acting Speaker discharges his official duties as presiding officer in general. They then add “and in particular his actions on 10 February 1988”.

Sir, if there is any dispute about facts, you will be able to tell us whether or not a complaint was submitted to you.

My contention is that I know of no evidence that there was general dissatisfaction on the part of the Official Opposition over any period of time, yet they made those accusations in this motion.

My second argument for saying I think the Official Opposition does not uphold and protect the authority and the dignity of the Chair properly resides in the facts concerning the events on 10 February. We all have to rely on our memories to some extent, but according to my memory, as I have tried to refresh it by going over the Hansard, hon members tried to raise points of order to such an extent that they prevented the Acting Speaker from giving his ruling. While he was getting ready to name the member, they tried to prevent him from doing so by jumping up and raising points of order, acting in direct conflict with Standing Order 111 which provides that:

This was not a matter of a point of order in the normal sense of the word. In terms of what has been said here, they knew that the presiding officer had decided to take certain steps and that he had given an hon member an opportunity to prevent him from having to take those steps. When it became clear that the member did not want to enable the Acting Speaker to deal with the matter properly from the Chair, and persisted in the allegations which I shall come to, the Acting Speaker was giving a ruling, and was constantly interrupted by points of order. This was not another member that was being interrupted; it was the presiding officer who was exercising his powers, who was discharging his official duties, who was prevented from doing so and was treated incorrectly by those hon members with all the points of order they wanted to raise then, basically in opposition to the provisions of the Standing Rules and Orders. [Interjections.]

A third example of the levity with which the Official Opposition approaches rulings was displayed in the fact that on 10 February, an hour or so after the hon member for Lichtenburg had been suspended, the hon member for Overvaal read out a telegram.

We did not attack him on this, but it did not slip our notice. It was done subtly enough for us to be unable to prove that the so-called telegram from “Ferdie” had in fact come from the hon member for Lichtenburg, but the connotation of the telegram has a direct connection with these events. I quote from the Hansard of the hon member for Overvaal:

[Interjections.] What is the relevance of this? The hon member will tell me that of course it had not been sent by the hon member for Lichtenburg, because he could not have reached Schweizer-Reneke within an hour. Nevertheless, this is an indication of the frivolity with which these hon members approach what they regard as one of the greatest disasters ever in this Parliament—their own members make jokes of it. [Interjections.]

I now come to the merits of the case. The hon members argue that action in terms of Standing Order No 113 would have been sufficient, viz that if an hon member refused to withdraw what he had said, he should be asked to withdraw from the House. I went and had a look at precedents, and there are two that are relevant.

The hon member for Lichtenburg was named as a result of an accusation he had made in respect of the hon the State President. I shall come to the true meaning of what he said in a moment. What are the underlying facts to which the hon member for Soutpansberg also referred? There was an allegation—which is to be properly investigated according to a notice of motion lower down on the Order Paper—that unnamed hon members on this side of the House had paid bribes. [Interjections.] I had a look at what had happened in the past. The late Mr Wiley was given no choice in terms of Standing Order No 113 when he put a question from which one might have deduced that an hon member had been guilty of dishonesty. He denied that he had been referring to a member, but despite this fact he was named and action was not taken against him in terms of Standing Order No 113. Mr Marwick also accused unnamed people—members of the House—of something. He was not dealt with in terms of Standing Order No 113.

What have we had to deal with now, if we compare these two precedents? In my opinion the hon member for Lichtenburg accused the hon the State President of knowing that members on this side were probably guilty, and that he was doing nothing about the matter. This implied two things. The hon member was convinced that there was good reason to believe first of all that members on this side were guilty, and secondly that the Leader of this party knew about this in all his capacities—as head of government and head of state—and had done nothing about it. This was a much more serious matter than the former two cases in which members were named and Standing Order No 113 was not implemented.

Let us take a look at the innocent interpretation the hon member for Soutpansberg tried to give to what the hon member for Lichtenburg had said. [Interjections.] One merely has to place the emphasis on different words to make it sound quite different. I quote:

He said “probably”.

Does that not sound different from when it was quoted by the hon member? [Interjections.]

There is the other example to which he referred:

Let me change the emphasis. He continued:

Does that sound innocent? [Interjections.]

This is a game with the rules of this House, to use words here and there to disguise what one is saying. Let us analyse what the hon member for Lichtenburg really did. The hon member took an allegation that was quoted in a newspaper—I have reason to believe it was incorrectly quoted in the specific newspaper—and read it out.

Is Johan Vosloo’s report wrong as well?

If the hon member had read Johan Vosloo’s whole report, it would have been clear to him that the report had nothing to do with bribes. Nothing at all!

What is a bribe?

The hon member must read the whole report; then he will know.

The hon member made that statement. He was therefore putting a question mark on things and indicating that he wanted to have the specific case tabled. Then he went further and provided his own conclusion. Surely he cannot say that such an investigation would confirm that that had been the case, merely because the report had appeared. On what grounds did he accept that the statements he had quoted were the probable truth? This was a conclusion, which went further than the basis the hon member was relying on when he said that was the reason he was putting the questions. That is why I say that those two sentences:

… and:

… take things further than the references he quoted himself and made this a substantive questioning of the honour and integrity of the State President.

We can do fancy footwork about when someone is a head of government, a head of state, a husband or whatever. All of us in this House know, however, that the more responsible one’s position, the less easily one can detach oneself from that position.

While it sounds very nice and is true to say that everyone in this House is equal …

Are we not all equal?

No, but it is a convention of this House that when the hon member’s leader speaks, he gets special protection from the Chair, which a backbencher on either side of the House does not get as readily, because there is respect for leadership among all parties. That often happens. In that sense of the word, the hon the State President is the most important man among equals in this system. If we hold the parliamentary system and our authority in this country in esteem, therefore, he deserves to be treated with the greatest respect at all times, whether we are angry with the hon the State President or not, and whether we are attacking him or not.

I therefore endorse and support the full weight of the ruling of the former Speaker, Mr Greeff, in 1986. If one wants any further distinction, it is precisely because the hon the State President is involved in this matter that there is absolute justification for not confining oneself merely to Standing Order No 113.

The CP wants their hon leader to become State President. I have attacked him openly in this House in a way which did not harm his person as such. Ostensibly that was unpleasant! [Interjections.] It was unpleasant. It was so bad that the whole country is talking about what an unpleasant speech I made. Yet it was quite in order to say that the hon the State President of this country probably knew that his people were guilty of the serious offence to which the hon member for Soutpansberg referred, and that the hon the State President was doing nothing about it.

In the third place I want to take a look at the explanation of the hon the Chairman in respect of the use of the letterhead. A few facts must be added when we talk about the letter itself. The hon member declined to say that despite the fact that the letter contained the address of the Office of the Chairman, the following was typed in in larger letters:

This was a clear indication that this letter was about a constituency matter concerning the MP of that constituency.

There is a second problem. It may be that the hon the Chairman is not entitled to use an ordinary MP’s letterhead, because the following decision was taken by a subcommittee:

I want to suggest, and will so move in my amendment, that the Standing Committee on Internal Arrangements be requested to investigate the rules in connection with hon members’ use of letterheads and, if necessary, to make things even clearer. I want to mention three uncertainties in the existing rules.

In the first place, what is a circular? If an hon member writes exactly the same letter to each individual voter when the voter has a birthday, is he writing a letter or sending a circular? One can conduct long arguments about the kind of circular that may or may not be sent in terms of the rules.

In the second place, must circulars be about parliamentary affairs? For example, is a circular promoting a member’s candidature about parliamentary affairs? Are circulars concerning partypolitical matters about parliamentary affairs?

These are just a few uncertainties, but since they do exist I am going to move that the relevant committee consider this matter once again.

As far as the explanation of the hon the Chairman is concerned, I want to point out that there was no real attack on the fact that he, as an MP, was entitled to write such a letter. The hon member for Soutpansberg conceded that. What is at issue, however, is two technical matters. The first is the question of whether he used the correct letterhead, and my contention is that there is uncertainty about that which should be clarified. The second matter is whether postage should or should not have been paid. We could argue that in terms of the rules it was not necessary to pay postage. According to my information, however, the hon the Chairman paid in more than would ever have been necessary for the number of letters that were sent the moment he became aware that there might be a problem and that his conduct might be questioned, and before there was any question of such a motion.

I want to say, therefore, that we on this side of the House accept his explanation. Consequently I want to move as an amendment:

1. (1) deplores the fact that the Official Opposition has failed to uphold and protect the authority and dignity of the Chair at all times;
2. (2) expresses its confidence in Mr Z P le Roux for the manner in which he discharges his official duties as presiding officer;
3. (3) accepts the personal explanation of Mr Z P le Roux in his capacity as Chairman of the House of Assembly in regard to the distribution of an information document in the electoral division of Pretoria West; and
4. (4) requests the Standing Committee on Internal Arrangements to examine and, if necessary, to formulate more clearly the rules relating to members’ use of letterheads.”.

I want to conclude with the following remark: We on this side of the House have always experienced great …

Partiality!

… no, great impartiality on the part of the hon the Chairman of this House, the hon member for Pretoria West, but also an exceptional dignity, as well as an exceptional ability not to be unnecessarily sharp with hon members. We see every day that when he sits in that Chair, he treats all hon members of this House, including the hon members of the Official Opposition, with the same courtesy. I think what we have been faced with here, was unfortunate and petty conduct on the part of the Official Opposition.

Mr Speaker, there is one issue I wish to bring to the notice of this House immediately. It is something that was raised by the hon the Leader of the House, and it relates to the special protection given to the hon the Leader of the governing party and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I submit that that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue before this House today. That special protection only relates to giving them protection when they are on their feet in this House, and they are to be protected more than other ordinary members of the House under those specific circumstances. I cannot accept any suggestion that the hon the State President or any Cabinet Minister or the hon the Leader of the House should get more protection in other areas than an ordinary member of Parliament. That is the first issue that I wish to take up with the hon member, and I would like to have that on the record.

When one looks at the motion before this House today, one realises that it is an extremely serious motion; and, when one considers that the office of Speaker goes back no less than 611 years to 1377, one realises how great and how important an office the office of Speaker is. Perhaps hon members would be interested in hearing an extract from an Encyclopaedia of Parliament, written by Wilding and Laundy, who state:

One would hope, therefore, that in South Africa, where we do not have a king but an executive State President, we will not have any occasion where a Speaker is removed because his rulings have displeased the executive authority. After all, the Speaker is the champion of Parliament and represents only that Parliament and no-one else.

Order! I must say, it would be quite a spectacle to see the Speaker being dragged into this House under the circumstances that the hon member has been telling us about. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, Erskine May goes further in relation to the office of Speaker. I have two quotes from him, and the first reads as follows:

The second reads:

It is therefore essential that both sides of the House believe implicitly in the impartiality of the Speaker, and I believe it is the duty of the Speaker to behave in such a way that that belief is strengthened. At Westminster that has gone so far that Speakers survive a change in the governing party.

The hon member who moved this motion also referred to that particular situation which I now quote:

Regrettably that did not happen in this House in 1948. I could wish that it had. In Canada they go as far as to alternate the Speaker. On one occasion if they have an English-speaking Speaker they alternate him with a French-speaking Speaker the next time around.

With that as a background I wish to turn to the motion before this House.

Let me say immediately that I believe the motion is somewhat wide. Therefore it is not our intention to support that motion, but rather to move as a further amendment, viz:

1. (1) he would not allow points of order in the events leading to the naming of the honourable member for Lichtenburg; and
2. (2) he named the said member, thus providing protection of the State President to an undesirable extent.”.

Hon members will note that our amendment has two legs: Firstly, the procedure adopted and, secondly, the particular case. I believe it is therefore relevant to discuss the actual naming of a member. Custom does dictate that this is a most serious procedure which is relatively rare. The last occasion in this House was no less than 16 years ago in 1972. The rules clearly state that the motion should not be amended or debated. However, the rule does not say that no points of order may be taken. In fact there are two precedents in the previous two namings of members in this House to which I would like to refer. I believe these cases are relevant.

The first case I refer to was in the joint debates of both Houses of Parliament in 1956, cols 704 and 705, where there was a case which led up to a naming. On this occasion a number of points of order were taken. Mr Hughes stood up on a point of order. Mr Speaker then said that the member had used the words “hired mercenaries”. Mr Lawrence then rose on a point of order. After Mr Speaker had in fact named the member—and I quote from col 705:

the Minister of Justice then took a point of order on which he was heard. That was even after the naming. Mr Speaker, you will note in the amendment I moved, that points of order were not allowed even prior to the naming of the hon member. That was in 1956, the last occasion ……

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member. Is the point in question that the Minister of Justice took a point of order after the naming procedure had been concluded?

Mr Speaker, there were points of order taken both before and after Mr Speaker had named the member.

Order! The naming procedure had thus been concluded?

The member had been named and the following speaker took a point of order in connection with the naming of the member. This point of order was heard by Mr Speaker.

Thank you.

There is a further example of this in 1972 with the naming of Mr Wiley. I will not go into it in detail, but hon members will find it in the Hansard of 1972, cols 4412 and 4413. I believe that also gives a precedence to the fact that there were points of order taken before the naming of the member. Therefore we are not happy with the decision not to allow points of order. As a matter of interest, there was a division on that particular occasion of the naming of Mr Wiley. The hon member Mr R A F Swart and the hon member Mrs H Suzman were in the House and voted against the naming at that stage.

[Inaudible.]

We have noticed with concern that there has been an increase in the number of times a member has been forced to resume his seat when he has wished to take a point of order. In this amendment we therefore wish to express our concern at this particular situation.

Secondly, we come to the action of the hon the Acting Speaker in naming the hon member for his attack on the hon the State President.

In order to make quite certain what we are dealing with here and in order to assist the hon the Acting Speaker in showing that in taking the action he did he was acting impartially, I want to ask the hon the Leader of the House four questions. If the hon the Leader of the House would give me his attention which he does not appear to be doing, I should like to ask him these four questions.

Firstly, I want to ask whether he at any time suggested to the hon the Acting Speaker that the hon member for Lichtenburg be named. Secondly, I want to know whether he is aware as to whether the hon the State President, any member of the Cabinet or any member of his party sought to have the hon member named, and suggested that to the hon the Acting Speaker. Thirdly, did he have any discussion on the matter with the hon the Acting Speaker at any stage prior to the naming of the hon member? If so, I think he should tell us what that discussion was. Fourthly, did any member of his party have such a discussion with the hon the Acting Speaker?

I am seeking to establish whether or not anybody attempted to influence the hon the Acting Speaker in his decisions. I think it is important that those questions be answered in order to get that matter out of the way.

It was his own decision.

That was not the question. The questions have been asked and I would be grateful if at some stage they could be answered. [Interjections.]

In his contested speech the hon member for Lichtenburg said firstly that the hon the State President knew of bribery actions by a member of his party and had done nothing; and secondly, that the hon the State President was afraid to call for an investigation, because he knew the allegations were true. For these two reasons he was named in this House.

As recently as 19 June 1987 I suggested in this House that the hon the Minister of Finance had bribed the House of Representatives with R1 500 million. You, Sir, called me to order and when I refused to withdraw that allegation I was dismissed for the remainder of the day’s sitting. I refer to Hansard Assembly, 1987, col 1866.

Are you proud of that?

In my view this would have been the appropriate reaction in the case of the hon member for Lichtenburg. The fact that the more serious procedure was followed, clearly indicates that the hon the Acting Speaker believed that the hon the State President’s protection was to be far greater than that afforded to an hon member of Parliament in this House. We in these benches find that to be unacceptable. He is, after all, the leader of our political opponents.

We believe that the hon the State President is entitled to the same protection as an ordinary member of Parliament—no more and no less— and we contend that the ruling of Mr Speaker on 4 September 1986 means just that. When the hon the Acting Speaker quoted the extract from that particular day’s debate, he left out the sentence immediately prior to the sentence that he read out. That sentence reads:

Therefore, I believe that in what comes thereafter he is not seeking to differentiate between the hon the State President and other hon members. I contend that Mr Speaker Greeff s ruling on that occasion meant that he was going to afford the hon the State President who was in fact no longer an elected member of this House, the same protection as he would afford any other hon member of Parliament.

That is the light in which we understood Mr Speaker Greeff to have given that ruling and we hope very sincerely that that is the case, because we do not believe that the hon the State President, as leader of the party to which we have been opposed for the whole of our existence, should have special protection in this House, greater than that of a member of Parliament.

Hear, hear!

For these reasons we have moved our amendment and I believe that I have provided motivation for that amendment. I thank you for, Sir, your attention.

Mr Speaker, I now want to refer to the amendment of the hon the Leader of the House. He accuses us of not being able to resist playing politics in this House.

However, his first allegation with regard to the motion before this House, is quite irrelevant. He said:

We challenge that with all the responsibility we possess. [Interjections.] In our motion we refer to previous occasions, to the general conduct of the Chairman of the House and to this specific occurrence to which my colleague, the hon member for Soutpansberg, referred. The hon the Leader of the House challenged me a moment ago by asking to which occasions we were referring. He said that I should say whether I knew of any cases in which the conduct of the hon the Chairman of the House had been brought to the attention of the Speaker.

Did you complain?

As Chief Whip of the CP, I received no complaints from any of the Chairmen of the House about the behaviour of hon members of the CP.

In the House?

In the House.

You are reprimanded so often in the House!

Never has the hon the Speaker or the hon the Chairman of the House called me to their offices to tell me that we do not, at all times, protect and uphold the authority and dignity of the Chair. On no occasion, Sir.

But did you complain? Answer my question.

First let me finish making this point. Members on that side are called to order, and it is a party of a 136 hon members, as often as members of this party.

It happens far more often.

Fine, Sir—10 times more, five times more, but that does not mean that we do not at all times cherish, uphold and protect the authority and dignity of the Chair, and I say it again now.

Oh, come on!

If the hon the Leader of the House says something like that, he is being irresponsible and is engaged in petty politicking. It does not become him. It does not become him to act in that manner. I want to go further and refer …

Are you going to answer my question?

I shall answer the hon the Leader of the House’s question. The hon the Leader of the House will grant that there is no right of appeal to the Speaker on a ruling made by the hon the Chairman. He is aware of that, is he not? Therefore it serves no purpose in any case for me to approach the Speaker and to complain about the ruling of the Chairman.

Oh, come on!

The second point is that the hon the Chairman of the House will himself tell the hon the Leader of the House that I spoke to him personally about rulings which he had given. He will tell him that I approached his Chair and asked him to give certain rulings in specific cases. The hon the Chairman of the House cannot deny that.

In his speech, the hon member for Soutpansberg mentioned the pressure which was brought to bear on the Chairman of the House about the ruling which he gave naming the hon member for Lichtenburg. The hon the Leader of the House did not react to that. The hon the Leader of the House did not react to the very valid arguments of the hon member for Soutpansberg that this very protection that the hon the State President enjoyed in terms of the old Constitution, namely that it was a punishable offence to insult the State President, no longer existed as that provision had not been repeated in the new Constitution—Act No 110 of 1983.

I do not dispute that!

Why not? The hon the Leader of the House does not dispute that. My question is, why not.

[Inaudible].

Yes, exactly! [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, it remains the highest office in the country! [Interjections.]

The office as such has a twofold function. It is a dual office. In one capacity the hon the State President is the leader of the NP; leader of the NP caucus—and therefore inside the political arena—but he is not even a member of this House. That is the position with regard to that matter.

The second point that I wish to raise in this regard is the following: The hon the Leader of the House mentioned precedents. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to other precedents. Is the real and germane precedent not the precedent that was established on 4 September 1986? On that occasion, Mr Speaker Greeff gave a ruling on conduct towards the hon the State President. The hon member for Overvaal—then still the hon member for Jeppe—said on that occasion (Hansard, 1986, col 11520):

That was the atmosphere of the time in which Speaker Greeff gave this ruling, and that was the atmosphere in which the then hon member for Jeppe made this remark. The Speaker then said to the hon member for Jeppe:

The hon member for Jeppe replied, whereupon the Speaker asked:

Then the Speaker asked him:

That was precisely why the Speaker gave that ruling. The reply of the then hon member for Jeppe was:

Whereupon the Speaker said:

The hon member then began to reply, but Speaker Greeff continued:

Was it then that he kicked open the door of the House? [Interjections.]

Was not an explicit, crystal clear precedent immediately set, the moment Speaker Greeff gave that ruling? And that is why we resent what the hon the Chairman of the House has said, Sir. That is the example, the precedent par excellence that the hon the Chairman could have followed in this regard. We come next to the hon the Leader of the House, who said that in this entire process we did not respect the dignity of the Chair. I have the relevant Hansard in my hand. I was the first to rise. Then the Acting Speaker said (Hansard, 10 February 1988):

At that stage I rose to my feet and said:

What was wrong with that? The Acting Speaker’s reaction to this was as follows:

Mr Speaker, what was derogatory or disrespectful in that regard? Then the hon member for Soutpansberg rose to his feet and said:”

Here the hon the Leader of the House is trying to attribute words or behaviour to us that are disrespectful to the Chair, while we are merely using the rights we have at our disposal, and which are contained in the Rules as well as in the precedents of this House. Therefore I cannot understand how the hon the Leader of the House can attribute disrespect or a lack of respect for the dignity of the House to us.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member something? If he looks at the rest of the relevant Hansard he will see that he raised points of order until I moved that “Dr F Hartzenberg be suspended from the service of the House”. Is it therefore not true that the points of order that he raised, were made after the Acting Speaker had already risen and while he was speaking?

Sir, that is precisely what we were doing. All along we were simply exercising the rights to which, in our opinion, a member is entitled. We have been proved correct by the Standing Rules and Orders and by the precedents of this House.

To interrupt him while he was standing? [Interjections.]

He was not standing.

That was not the case.

With regard to the second part of this motion, there is one important aspect which the hon the Leader of the House has ignored completely, namely that it is pre-eminently a duty of the Chairman of this House to be impartial. However, he wrote a party political letter. Here it is not a question of the rights of a member; whether he may use parliamentary letterheads or whether he has to affix stamps to his letters. Here the important point is that he wrote an official letter from the Chair of this House.

He gave the address of the constituency office.

The office address he gave was the office of the Chairman of the House.

No, he gave another address.

Just like Willie Lemmer.

But that is not the point. The real official …

[Inaudible.]

May I complete my speech?

It is your members who are provoking me. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the House should not be so easily provoked. After all, he is the Leader of the House. [Interjections.]

For anyone who reads that letter, which has a parliamentary seal on it, the official address is the office of the Chairman of the House, and the signature below was that of the Chairman of the House.

In that letter—which was addressed to the voters in Pretoria West—he, a person who should be impartial, attacked the Official Opposition. Even in his most party-political moments the hon the Leader of the House cannot condone such conduct.

I make a further appeal to the Chairman of the House not to be influenced by the fact that he has a majority in the House here today that is going to support the amendment of the hon the Leader of the House. He must allow himself to be guided by the fact that he is a jurist, that as such he could possibly become a judge, that he is a senior advocate and that he has been a member of this House for approximately 13 years, and then he must examine his conscience and ask himself whether, under the circumstances, he is still suitable to remain in this position in which he has given a very clear indication that he is not capable of arriving at an impartial judgment on the merits of the respective political parties in this House. [Interjections]

Therefore we ask that this motion of the hon member for Soutpansberg be accepted.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan, the Chief Whip of the CP, tried to advance reasons as to why that party had not previously lodged complaints about the Chairman of the House. That would have proved why they were opposed to the general conduct of the Chairman. He was unable to give any real reason, and he convinced no one in that regard.

He also referred to an incident that occurred after Speaker Greeff had given the relevant ruling with regard to the then hon member for Jeppe. He then used the following words; I wrote down the words the hon member used. The Speaker then referred to hon members who attacked the State President not just as a person but also as head of state. If there was ever crystal clear evidence for the viewpoint of this side of the House, it was contained in those words.

What is the argument here? The argument is that there are allegations of anomalies and that there are allegations that the hon the State President allows those anomalies. That is a personal attack on the hon the State President, which is definitely not permissible in the light of Speaker Greeff’s ruling.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth also referred to the demand that a State President and an ordinary member be treated in the same way. The hon member then gave the example of an incident in which he was involved last year. He alleged that the hon the Minister of Finance had bribed the members of the House of Delegates with a certain large sum. There is no comparison between the two incidents. That incident was an example of lawful negotiation and of expenditure of public funds after lawful negotiation. Here we are dealing with a personal attack of which dishonesty is taken as the basis.

I wondered whether the hon member for Soutpansberg did not perhaps have a point when he began, but I had no doubt that he was wrong when he had finished. He used the word “probably”. What does this word mean? The word means on a balance of probabilities, in other words, that I personally do not know, that I was not there, that I am not 100% sure that that was the case, but only 75% sure. I want to suggest that to allege that one is 75% sure that that was the case, is sufficient to denigrate a person. If the hon member for Lichtenburg was so unsure, why did he not withdraw his words when he was requested to do so? [Interjections.] The hon member for Soutpansberg made much of the distinction between the position of the hon the State President in his capacity of head of state and of head of the government. I do not want to put it too strongly, but was it not those hon members who were recently accused of discouraging members of the Defence Force from drinking a toast to the hon the State President? All of a sudden there was no distinction between the position of the hon the State President as head of state and as head of the Government. Now, suddenly, there is a big difference.

The last sentence of the ruling given by Speaker Greeff on 4 September 1986 reads:

Nothing could be clearer. In other words, if one belittles the hon the State President as a person, it is not acceptable. Yet it is the most understandable thing there is. If the hon the State President is accused as head of the Government of personally allowing irregularities to take place, it cannot but reflect on his integrity as head of State and on the quality of the head of State of South Africa. That cannot be allowed.

The CP is correct that the only point that they really have is the fact that this point will have to be attacked. There can be no doubt that the hon member for Lichtenburg cast doubt on and spoke disparagingly about the person of the hon the State President because he allegedly allowed irregularities to take place. If the hon members of the CP want to attack this matter, I suggest that they attack the ruling of the previous Speaker Greeff, and for that they need a substantive motion.

The second part of the motion refers to the letters which the Chairman of the House distributed? For the sake of fairness all the facts must be laid before this House. What are all the facts? Firstly, the hon the chairman sent a number of photocopies of his own official letterhead to some of his voters. It was not the letterheads themselves but photocopies of them that he sent out. The letter consisted of two sheets, in other words four pages and 85% of it was concerned with constituency problems. The hon Chief Whip of the PFP had a great deal to say about how the hon the Chairman of the House should be impartial, but the fact is he still represents a constituency which he must attend to. That is what he did in this letter. [Interjections.]

What did he write about in this letter? The letter dealt with the expansion of a Black town, Atteridgeville, which is situated near his constituency. It dealt with the provision of housing and telephone services for Whites in his constituency as well as the upgrading of houses in his constituency. It dealt with road schemes in his constituency and the unpleasant smell emitted by a factory there, as well as with untruths regarding the proclamation of the Erasmia area as an Indian area. The letter also dealt with the report of the President’s Council on group areas. The remaining 15% of his letter was devoted to scare-mongering stories of the CP in his constituency that that constituency would become Black. [Interjections.] He sent these letters in his own envelopes and not in official envelopes.

Now the accusation is being made that it contained propaganda. It dealt with problems and scare-mongering stories in his own constituency. I want to suggest that this letter was written in the best tradition of an eminent member of Parliament. It was a circular that dealt with parliamentary matters.

A further accusation has been levelled at him, namely that he used an official letterhead. That is not what he did. He did in fact use his official letterhead to make photocopies, but it was the photocopies which he circulated and not the official letterhead. [Interjections.] The question is what offence did the hon Chairman commit? He did not break a single rule of this House. Neither did he break one of his conditions of service. The rules on postal services for members, as stated on page 118 of the Guide for Members, obviously do not apply to the Chairman and the Speaker. First of all the conditions of service of the Chairman of the House differ from those of ordinary members. He has the use of an official vehicle, an official residence and official letterheads, and that is as it should be because the Chairman is the most senior functionary in the House of Assembly. His status must befit that of the House of Assembly as opposed to other institutions of authority in our country, for example, the executive and the legal authority.

Secondly, it is very clear that the letterheads mentioned in the guides for members are not the letterheads of the Chairman. Thirdly, the hon Chairman did not make use of official Parliamentary envelopes. He used his own envelopes but used the Parliamentary stamp on them; something which he is entitled to do and on which no restriction has yet been placed. Indeed, he did himself in because even as an ordinary member he was entitled to have used 6 250 sheets of writing paper and an equal number of envelopes; something which he did not do. He used his own paper and envelopes. I want to suggest that the hon Chairman should in truth be reimbursed for the postage fees. Nevertheless I support the amendment of the hon the Minister of National Education because there are no rules that cover this matter and the need apparently exists for the drawing up of such rules.

I want to suggest that this complaint smacks of pettiness, something that we can definitely do without in this House. If there is one thing that stands out a mile, it is that this aspect of the postal services would not have been raised, had there not been problems between the hon Chairman and the hon member for Lichtenburg.

Mr Speaker, I want to say thank you for the opportunity of addressing just a few words to this House.

What is very important to me is the question of why this motion was tabled today. I listened to the speeches from the Official Opposition side, and also to the speech made by the hon the Chief Whip of the PFP. The fact that the PFP moved an amendment to the motion of the Official Opposition is to my mind clear evidence that there were political reasons for the CP moving this motion today. The political reasons were that the Official Opposition had to try in some way or other to present the behaviour of the hon member for Lichtenburg, the behaviour which he displayed here, in a better light. They were unable to do so in any other way than to launch this unfounded attack on the hon the Chairman of the House.

The CP proceeds from the standpoint that the general conduct of the Chairman of the House is not what it should be. They doubt his objectivity; indeed, they doubt his integrity. However, they did not submit any valid arguments, because they said the Chairman of the House was not applying the rules of the House properly and objectively. However, I say with all due respect, that they are mistaken on that score.

The main issue revolves around the fact that when he was Acting Speaker he did not want to listen to points of order while he was in the process of naming an hon member. I want to suggest that Standing Orders Nos 114 and 115 should be read in conjunction with one another. It is a process, and the Acting Speaker had already intimated his intention—it is clear from Hansard—before an attempt was made to raise a point of order. If my memory serves me correctly, he had not yet risen to his feet at that specific moment. However, he had in fact intimated that he was in the process of naming the hon member. Unfortunately the Official Opposition did not comply with Standing Order No 111 on that day. This standing order states that when the Speaker rises, he shall be heard in silence, or words to that effect. Erskine May makes it very clear in his well-known manual that when that happens no points of order shall be raised. In this connection I want to quote two passages from his book to hon members. The one is taken from the 20th edition, page 447. While the Acting Speaker was naming the hon member—the Acting Speaker was on his feet at that stage—continued attempts were made to raise points of order. The learned author states on page 447:

What is more, on page 235 he states:

That is the best proof that can be furnished that no points of order may be taken when the Speaker is on his feet, and hon members did not comply. This is only one facet I wanted to point out to hon members.

To this day the hon member for Lichtenburg has still not made use of another rule of this House. He has not yet apologised for his contentious behaviour. After he was named, he had the opportunity of apologising at any time according to Standing Order No 118, and he omitted to do so. That simply goes to show that we are dealing here with a political game. It is a pity that a man of the integrity and the dignity of the Chairman of this House has now been implicated in a controversy.

I am not even going to discuss the second part of this motion, because it was dealt with very effectively by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. I think we ought to accept the Chairman’s personal explanation. In fact, it has been accepted by implication by the PFP because they did not even comment on it. I think that the Chairman’s explanation ought to be accepted unanimously by this House, as far as the second part of the motion is concerned.

As for the first part of the motion, the Chairman acted objectively and in a responsible way. Since the person of the hon the State President was directly implicated by the hon member for Lichtenburg, it was in accordance with previous rulings from the Chair. My argument is that we are dealing with opportunism, and although it was professed that the issue here was the important adherence to the traditions of this House, I want to suggest that we should not accept this motion. I should like to support the amendment as moved by the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, I do not intend to repeat any of the arguments put forward by any of the other speakers. I merely want very briefly to place on record the point of view of the NDM in support of the amendment moved by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

It was quite clear at the time the hon the Acting Speaker was handling the points of order and dealing with the procedure of naming the hon member for Lichtenburg that it was something he had been informed about beforehand. That was the impression one gained. One also gained the impression that it had been predetermined. When the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central asked the questions as to whether or not he had been spoken to before I gained the impression, as far as I personally am concerned, that he had been spoken to before, that he had been spoken to by senior members of the governing party and that it was therefore a procedure of which one could not approve. I therefore align myself with the amendment expressing displeasure at an action of the hon the Acting Speaker which was not in the tradition of impartiality and which should have been.

Very briefly, as regards the growing diffusion between the two statuses of the hon the State President—that of head of state and that of head of government—there is a growing tendency to confuse the two statuses not only on the part of hon members of the NP but, under their guidance and leadership also members of the public.

If he is in this House or takes part in debates as the leader of the governing party or as the head of government, he must be prepared to face the flack of gutter politics. [Interjections. ] He cannot elevate himself or find a gap or an excuse not to be attacked because he is the head of state and a saint. Are we going to revert to the 13th and 14th centuries when the King of England said: “I am beyond attack”? Now we have an emperor who says: “I am beyond attack.” [Interjections.] The tendency is in that direction and we must object to it. In one capacity the hon the State President is the head of the NP Government, which is a controversial position in itself. [Interjections.]

For that reason too we believe that support of the amendment moved by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is justified.

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Durban Central has just said and in fact I wish to refer to the questions put to the hon the Leader of the House by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Did he at any time suggest to the hon the Acting Speaker that the hon member for Lichtenburg should be named?

You did accuse me of that in any case.

Why, then, do you not react to that? Answer yes or no. Say I am wrong.

There was no pressure on the hon Acting Speaker. He took his own decision.

Did you speak to him?

Of course a discussion took place. That door is open to all of you. Did you approach him before he gave the ruling?

No.

Yes.

No, I was not there.

One of you approached him.

I did not approach him.

Was Dr Hartzenberg himself there?

As far as I know, he was summoned.

Was there a discussion?

Yes.

Did you have the opportunity to influence his ruling?

As far as I know …

Order! The hon member may proceed.

As far as I know, the hon Acting Speaker summoned the hon members for Brakpan and Lichtenburg. Is that correct?

Yes.

That is correct.

Is that where the points of order were born?

After that he told them more or less what his ruling was going to be. [Interjections.] However, that is not the point at issue. The hon the Leader of the House and the Executive have a different relationship with the hon the Acting Speaker than the hon members of the Opposition.

Now I am the one who …

No, your attitude is …

You have the same rights as we do and you know it.

No, they are closer to one another in a party context. That is it, of course. However, the attitude of the hon the Leader of the House is “L’ état, c’est moi”—I am the State. Therefore it appears that my contention that the hon the Leader of the House gave the hon Acting Speaker certain guidelines or suggestions, was quite correct. We believe that this is an irregularity. It is evident from rulings in the past that Mr Speaker should act on his own in regard to matters of this nature.

He arrived at his own decision.

After contributions had been made by the hon the Leader of the House. Does a judge ever hear one of the parties in chambers? Does he ever permit only one of the parties to make a contribution?

Surely he listened to you as well!

Keep your breath for a debate on Munsieville.

The present hon member for Krugersdorp could have participated in this debate if he had wished.

It is quite clear that the hon the Leader of the House discussed this matter with the hon Acting Speaker in a way that influenced him. However he must admit …

Mr Speaker, is the hon member for Soutpansberg entitled to say that the hon the Leader of the House spoke to the hon the Acting Speaker in a way that influenced him?

He has no grounds for saying that. It is untrue.

You influenced him.

An independent witness was present.

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg charged the hon the Leader of the House with something which the hon the Leader of the House, as an honourable member of this House, denied, and he may not persist with the accusation he made.

As you wish, Mr Speaker. I just want to say something on behalf of all hon members on this side of the House. The hon the Leader of the House cast a reflection on our attitude to the Chair. I reject that reflection he cast, with contempt. We as a party, and we as individual members, whatever our personal capacities may be, and however we have reacted as individuals in certain specific circumstances, reflect from our side the totally correct attitude to the office-bearers in the Chair—from Mr Speaker to the Deputy Chairman of Committees—that is required of us.

Just prove it!

Some of our hon members on this side are very seldom called to order, and I think that there are some of us who have never been called to order.

Are you referring to Koos?

I think that our general attitude, behaviour and approach to the Chair is at all times correct, as far as humanly possible.

I want to come back to the fact that the hon the Leader of the House can now no longer even recall who raised the points of order and what happened when we raised points of order.

I told you how I remembered it.

Not one of us rose while the Acting Speaker was on his feet. Not one of us. I can specifically recall that when he told me the second time that he was not permitting points of order, he was still seated.

That is correct.

In any event, as I know hon members on that side of the House, they would have protested loudly if any of us had been standing while the hon Acting Speaker was on his feet.

The issue here is the point of order, and the point of order as such is such an important part of the procedure in this House that, as I have said, even May singled this out specifically as one of the tasks of Mr Speaker—to consider hon members’ points of order.

I concede that there are various ways of doing so. There are those points of order that are dealt with from the Chair, but there is also a point of order that Mr Speaker may be requested to consider and react to later. All these authors also mentioned that there are trifling points of order and that Mr Speaker must deal with them in a specific fashion. Mr Speaker did not indicate to us that we were dealing with trifles, and suffice it to say that in any event we were not dealing with trifles.

Oh, come on!

When one reads previous debates similar to this one, one finds that time and again, like a refrain, the member who moves the motion asks the debate to be conducted above the level of party politics. Because I anticipated the futility of that, I did not do so again, because in not one of the previous debates were those who moved the motions able to elevate them above party politics. I tried to state the matter as objectively and clinically as possible.

We know, too, that we shall not succeed in our motion, but I do think that this motion and the discussion that has resulted from it has placed fresh emphasis for all of us on certain aspects of the House of Assembly and its operation, and that certain values have been instilled in us afresh. [Interjections.]

The hon Chief Whip of Parliament and the Whips of the NP are certainly the most lightweight Whips the NP has ever had. [Interjections ] They are known by the fact that they speak very little, but twitter endlessly. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, they twitter like sparrows. [Interjections.]

I say that we have all benefited by this discussion. I said at the outset—I wish to repeat it—that I move this motion reluctantly. I did so without taking pleasure in it. Nevertheless we deemed it necessary.

One of the hon members argued that the matter relating to the letter would never have been raised had this other issue not been involved. That is not correct.

I think there is another matter I must also deal with. The hon the Leader of the House asked why we had not complained about the hon the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman of the House in the past. That question could never have occurred to us, for the following reasons. In the first instance, no provision is made for it in the Rules of the House. There is no convention in Parliament that I know of—I have been a member of this House for 21 years now—even from my time in the Chair, which permitted anyone to complain to a higher authority about the behaviour of an occupant of the Chair.

Hon members opposite contend that in the past we had no reason for dissatisfaction with the conduct or attitude of previous Speakers. Sir, on a number of occasions I have sat here in my bench thinking that it would soon be time for us to come to this House with a motion in this regard. We saw it coming. However, one prefers not to do anything of that kind. If I were to approach either the Chairman of the House or Mr Speaker and tell him I intended to bring a motion against him before the House, then surely I would be threatening him. I cannot do that. Indeed, Harry Lawrence said to Mr Speaker in a debate in 1954: “I shall leave the House, but tomorrow I am going to move a motion against you.” As a result he was named by Mr Speaker. That is the problem, Mr Speaker. No one can tell the Speaker that he should act in any particular way or else a motion would be moved against him. Anyone doing so would surely be threatening the Speaker. There simply is no such thing. Sir. I believe that the assumption on which we proceed here is simply that we expect Mr Speaker always to conduct himself as a Speaker should. Then, when eventually he acts in such a way that the opposition parties or anyone else feels that they are now compelled to censure him, then they do so.

It is for that very reason, Mr Speaker, that I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that that argument of his carries no weight with us at all.

Mr Speaker, we shall let the motion that we have moved, suffice. We shall support our motion to the best of our ability.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question.

Question negatived and the words omitted (Official Opposition dissenting).

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr D J N Malcomess put,

Upon which the House divided:

NOES—90: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Bekker, H J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; Dilley, L H M; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, CL; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, AC AC; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hugo, P F; 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, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, PG; Maree, J W; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nothnagel, A E; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Schlebusch, A L; 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, D W; Steyn, P T; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P 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 Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, LM J; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Viljoen, G v N; Vlok, A J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Golden, S G A; Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Maree, M D; Smit, H A.

AYES—25: Andrew, K M; Coetzee, H J; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Hulley, R R; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Uys, C; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Dalling, D J; Malcomess, D J N.

Question negatived.

Substitution of the words proposed by the Leader of the House agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That the House—

1. (1) deplores the fact that the Official Opposition has failed to uphold and protect the authority and dignity of the Chair at all times;
2. (2) expresses its confidence in Mr Z P le Roux for the manner in which he discharges his official duties as presiding officer;
3. (3) accepts the personal explanation of Mr Z P le Roux in his capacity as Chairman of the House of Assembly in regard to the distribution of an information document in the electoral division of Pretoria West; and
4. (4) requests the Standing Committee on Internal Arrangements to examine and, if necessary, to formulate more clearly the rules relating to members’ use of letterheads.

After division:

Order! Now that this matter has been proceeded with and disposed of by hon members in a commendable way within the rules of this House and in the best traditions of this House, I am certain that I will have the cooperation of all hon members of this House when I tell them that, now that we have gone through this splendid process of democracy, we shall again display our unanimous confidence in the Chairman of the House as Chairman, and as such display the necessary respect towards him. I am very certain that this will be the case, and I thank the hon members for the debate.

Mr Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (1) the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives, the Rev H J Hendrickse; and
2. (2) Mr J Vosloo,
   in terms of sections 10 (3) (l) and 36 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963, in that—
   1. (a) in Paarl on or about 31 October 1987 at the Cape Congress of the Labour Party the Rev H J Hendrickse made statements to the following effect:
      “National Party (NP) MPs have offered bribes of R10 000 to Labour Party (LP) MPs to postpone the 1989 parliamentary election”,
      which statements were referred to anew by the member for Reigerpark (Mr J A Rabie) in a debate in the House of Representatives on 9 February 1988; and
   2. (b) Mr J Vosloo wrote the following in Rapport of 3 January 1988:
      “Daar is NP-LP’s wat by hul bruin kollegas met ’n ‘omkoopgeskenk’ van die uitstel van al die Huise se verkiesings tot 1992 gekom het. En hulle was nie sonder welslae nie.”.

There is one point I should like to emphasise at the outset. My party and political observers in the country cannot understand why the Government did not, in the first place and at the earliest available opportunity, introduce a motion such as the one before the House at the moment. Let us examine the circumstances closely.

Until recently Rev Hendrickse was a member of the Cabinet of this country. After that he resigned, or he was expelled, depending on the perspective from which one sees his retirement from the Cabinet. About three and a half months ago, on 31 October 1987, he made a very offensive statement, viz:

That took place during a meeting of the Labour Party’s Cape Congress. This serious allegation was, therefore, made at a public meeting which was widely reported. It was published in Die Burger of 2 November 1987 and in The Sunday Star of 8 November 1987. In the latter newspaper it was reported that—

A spokesman in the office of the hon the State President said—

That was how they responded to a very serious accusation.

I say a very serious statement was made. In this regard I refer once more to Erskine May, more specifically to p 149 of the 19th edition. A 20th edition has since been published, and the same appears on p 156.

We are not disputing that it is serious.

The hon the Leader of the House is not disputing that it is serious.

No.

Therefore, the hon the Leader of the House does not dispute what Erskine May says either, viz:

So seriously does the British House of Commons treat this matter. Erskine May goes on to say:

In the second edition of his book, in 1950, Ralph Kilpin states that at that stage there had been only two cases of breach of privilege. The first case in South Africa occurred in 1885; and the second case—strangely enough, it concerned bribery—in 1898. Kilpin states:

Hon members on both sides of the House, therefore, regard such a misdemeanour in an exceptionally serious light as far as the tradition of this Parliament is concerned. It is very odd, however, that neither the hon the State President, nor the Cabinet nor anyone who represents the governing party is doing anything about it. That is not all. On 3 January 1988 an article by Mr J Vosloo appeared in Rapport. In this article he made the following flagrant statement:

Another serious allegation was made: “En hulle was nie sonder welslae nie.” Yet the hon the State President and the Cabinet continued to do nothing about the matter. Then, on 9 February, the hon member for Lichtenburg got up to speak. He, as well as the hon member for Reigerpark, Mr J A Rabie, referred to this affair. Yet the Government continued to do nothing with regard to the matter. When did the Government propose a motion, or when did it give notice that it was going to propose a motion? It did so after I had given notice of this motion of mine.

[Inaudible.]

No, it was only after I had given notice of this motion that the hon the Minister of National Education said that they would have introduced this motion in any case. He said [Hansard, Assembly: col 478]:

That was after I had given notice of my motion. In other words, all these events occurred between 31 October 1987 and the time I gave notice of my motion. Only then did the Government wake up; it then decided that it was prepared to move a motion of breach of privilege.

What I find particularly interesting in this regard is that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs got up to speak immediately after the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke. The hon the Minister asked why the hon member did not ask Rev Hendrickse to introduce a motion, because “they were on the same side of the counter, after all”. The hon the Minister of National Education informed us, therefore, that such a motion would be introduced. As a matter of fact, they had already been negotiating for a long time with the leaders of the respective Houses, but the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs apparently knew nothing about that, even though he is a member of the same Cabinet. Clearly, therefore, we are confronted with a rather odd situation, or the same situation as in the case of the Information scandal, when certain members of the Cabinet purported not to know what other members of the Cabinet had done.

I come now to a further consideration with regard to this very question of privilege. It is for this reason that we urge the Government rather to accept our motion instead of their own. As far as the introduction of motions is concerned, it was also a question of a delayed reaction on the part of the Government, because it was only after the hon member for Yeoville gave instructions to the hon the Minister of Justice, and the hon the Minister of Justice, in turn, gave instructions to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that there was any mention of a point of order. That point of order concerned possible breach of privilege. Why did they, at that stage, consider it to be a question of privilege whereas they are not prepared to accept a breach of privilege motion now? In criticising the Government now because they did not act immediately after these allegations were made by Rev Hendrickse, I should like to compare the action they took in this case with other action they took under similar circumstances.

The first incident occurred when Rev Hendrickse swam at New Brighton. Within the first few weeks the hon the State President had hauled him over the coals. The second incident was Rev Hendrickse’s resignation, or whatever it was that took place—which SATV had presented in a way that neither pleased nor satisfied the hon the State President. Mr Eksteen was called away from a party he was co-hosting and he was hauled over the coals by the hon the State President. The reaction came immediately after SATV’s news services acted in a way which did not please the hon the State President, whose statement had to be read twice in order to satisfy him. That was a quick, a spontaneous and an impulsive reaction to events. Thirdly, I mention the incident involving Mr Ball of Barclays Bank. Immediately after the events took place, a judicial commission was appointed to investigate the actions of Mr Ball and of Barclays Bank.

We also saw just as immediate a reaction to a case of breach of privilege. I myself, while I was still recovering from an operation, was subjected to investigation by a select committee of alleged breach of privilege. After a certain pamphlet appeared in Port Natal, this House reacted immediately because it involved a fellow Afrikaner, a fellow member who had formerly been a member of their party. That did not make any difference. He could just as well have been destroyed or have been crushed in a mud storm. However, their new partners in this new monstrosity (onding) of a tricameral system had to be protected.

Order! The hon member may not refer to Parliament as a “monstrosity” (onding). He must withdraw that reference.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. The partners in this new system which had been introduced by the NP had to be protected. When the hon member for Sandton committed a possible breach of privilege by referring in a certain way to Mr Justice Munnik, the Government requested on that very same day that a select committee be appointed to investigate a possible breach of privilege. It was then found that no breach of privilege had been committed, but that is not relevant now. The point is that such an investigation was impulsively and immediately requested. When one considers it against this background, one asks oneself whether it is unfair and unreasonable to draw at least an unfavourable conclusion about the Government’s failure to act positively and speedily after their partner in this coalition government had acted in the way he did.

This motion which has been introduced by the CP goes to the core of the matter that should be investigated. We are ad idem on that. The hon the Leader of the House agreed with me that when an allegation of bribery is made it is a serious reflection on the MPs of the NP. Moreover, this motion concerns precisely what the hon the Leader of the House referred to on 10 February 1988 when he said that privilege would also be considered:

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also referred to breach of privilege.

As a result of the action taken by the hon member for Lichtenburg, the hon the Minister of Justice referred to a breach of privilege. Why, then does the hon the Leader of the House not accept a motion which asks for exactly that, when he gave notice on 10 February already that he would be amenable to a motion that a committee be appointed to investigate the question of breach of privilege?

I cannot anticipate the motion of the hon the Leader of the House, but I do want to emphasise that as far as the motion which we are debating at present is concerned, we can reach the finding that there had been a breach of privilege by hon members, even if the allegation is not true. Even if it is proved that what Rev Hendrickse had said is not true, he would still be guilty of a breach of privilege.

Order! I do not think the hon member must cover this subject too widely, because then he would then be exceeding the scope of his motion and would then be venturing into the territory of a select committee if such a committee were appointed. The hon member must please bear in mind that he must not discuss this too widely.

I shall not discuss it too widely, Sir. I want to conclude with this argument. The hon the Leader of the House, who is likely to reply to this motion, must take into account that such a select committee may possibly find that there had been breach of privilege, whether or not Rev Hendrickse spoke the truth.

Mr Chairman, let us begin with the consensus we have achieved. We agree that it is a serious matter if an hon member of Parliament should attempt to bribe another hon member of Parliament to act in a specific way, for whatever reason. If we are agreed on that and if the hon member for Brakpan reproaches us because we had not done anything about it earlier, why did he himself not do something about it earlier? If they regarded it as being so serious, why did they come and discuss it at a petty political level in this debate and not move a motion in the first instance? They only began to regard it as being so serious and important after their deputy leader, the hon member for Lichtenburg, had been named and sent out in that regard. They then sat down and tried to establish how they could create embarrassment, make political difficulties and repair the damage that they as a party had suffered. The argument cuts both ways.

I can look hon members in the eye when I say that the first time I became aware of it was when the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about it, because I do not go through opposition newspapers with a fine-tooth comb to find something to use against my fellow Afrikaners as those hon members do. The first time I became aware of it was when the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about it.

Do you not read Rapport?

Rapport is your own newspaper!

The report in Rapport is about something different, but I should be infringing on Mr Speaker’s ruling if I were to discuss the merits of the two reports.

Therefore we have consensus on the point that this is a serious matter. Hon members on this side of the House are being dragged in and it is because I want our name to be clear that there is a motion in my name. If the hon member is insinuating that we only came forward with a motion because he moved a motion, then he is making a big mistake and he is again trying to score petty political points.

I briefly wish to sketch the events chronologically. From the moment that the hon member for Lichtenburg made his speech on Tuesday, consultations were held. We on this side of the House put our heads together to decide what we should do. Those of us with legal knowledge discussed the matter together. The result was that the next morning, Wednesday morning, during discussions between the hon the State President and the hon Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, consensus was reached on the principle that an enquiry should be undertaken. A decision was taken to draw up a motion to have a joint committee appointed. The hon member’s motion asks that we appoint a select committee consisting of members of this House only.

No!

He is calling for a select committee. He is not calling for a joint committee, comprising hon members of all three Houses.

The hon the Leader of the House did not read my motion!

Oh, “to form part of a joint committee”.

Apologise!

However, how is the hon member going to obtain the co-operation of the other Houses?

Surely the House does it if you do not decide.

No, Sir, this House does not negotiate. There will have to be negotiations with the majority parties in those Houses. We did the orderly thing by negotiating from the outset because not only members of this House, but also members of those Houses were involved in this whole dispute and debate. That caused the delay, but on Wednesday morning consensus had already been achieved in principle. There was a delay. At that stage we had not yet hammered out the final wording of a motion. That also explains why I said at that stage that we would propose a broader enquiry that would include the issue of breach of privilege by the newspaper.

After negotiation, a similar motion was agreed on, to be submitted in all three Houses, namely the wording that we shall discuss in the next motion. It has already been passed in the other two Houses. It is still to be, and I hope that it will be, passed in this House. The question now is whether the acceptance of the next motion, as against the acceptance of this motion, will be prejudicial in regard to the matter of action taken against anyone in regard to breach of privilege. I made enquiries and investigated the matter and the conclusion I have arrived at is that it would not hinder or be to the detriment of any follow-up action in regard to breach of privilege if the enquiry were first to be carried out in the manner that I propose.

The hon member’s motion does not concern the merits of the alleged breach of privilege. If we accept his proposal, then the committee need not examine the truth of the allegations, but only whether such allegations were made and published, and if so, whether they constituted a breach of privilege. Is that all that the hon member wanted to know?

That is not what it entails.

His motion could be dealt with in that way.

No!

Yes, Sir. However, our motion states primarily that we want the facts. We first of all want the facts and the truth about the allegations quoted. Secondly, we want an enquiry into the allegations in this regard by the hon member for Lichtenburg, and his conclusions.

Then you will be taking action against him a second time!

No, Sir. We are merely investigating the truth, and if the truth is established, whatever it may be, and it were to reveal breach of privilege, then effective action may be taken with regard to such breach of privilege.

A new commission?

No, Sir. Then it is a matter of the less important part. The most important thing is to know what the truth is, because if there is an hon member in a party over which I have any say who has been guilty of that, then such an hon member will and must be subjected to strict disciplinary action. This party does not tolerate anything of that nature in its ranks.

Hear, hear!

We stand accused, and for us it is of prime importance that there be an enquiry into the truth of the matter. On the grounds of that same accusation the hon member for Lichtenburg saw fit to take the matter further and made a strong insinuation, as we have already just debated, that the Chief Leader of this party was aware of something, the truth of which has not yet been determined. Therefore we cannot support this motion, not because we are opposed to an enquiry into breach of privilege, but because we feel that the correct sequence and determination of priority requires that we will in the first place establish the truth of both the quotations and the Press reports to which reference is being made, and the conclusions and insinuations of the hon member for Lichtenburg. We can then use that knowledge to determine who is to be inquired into and in which way, if at all necessary, in order to uphold the honour and dignity of Parliament and all its members.

My motion contains no presumption. Nor is it aimed at a specific hon member. It is concerned with statements. It is concerned with establishing the truth of alleged statements. With that information available to us we shall be able to decide who has offended and who is punishable. Subsequently the necessary steps can be taken. Moreover, nothing prevents us from doing things in this sequence.

Mr Speaker, I shall deal specifically with the hon the Leader of the House’s comments in a moment. First of all, Sir, I should point out that we in these benches believe that, just as in the case of marriage vows, a breach of privilege resolution should not be taken lightly or frivolously. It should be taken seriously. It should also be taken courageously. I do not believe we should evade issues of breach of privilege when we believe there is a possibility that they have occurred. It does not behove Parliament as a whole that these matters should be approached on a partisan basis. I believe that an issue of a breach of privilege or of contempt of Parliament is something which affects all parties. It affects Parliament as an institution. It affects us as members irrespective of our party affiliations.

It is against this background that we approach this matter. While it might have begun as part of the skirmishes which have a lot to do with Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke, something has been uncovered which goes far beyond Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton; something which directly affects this House and its status and dignity. We will therefore deal with the matter in that light, Mr Speaker. We are not involved in the “onderonsie” between the CP and the NP.

I was disappointed in the hon the Leader of the House today. It almost appeared as though he was defending somebody else. He said: “Ek fynkam nie opposisiekoerante nie.” I can tell him the quotations I have do not come from “opposisiekoerante”. They come basically from Die Burger, and also from Rapport. He also does not have to “fynkam” anything. The leader of his party is mentioned in these reports as having been made aware of the allegations, albeit on the basis of hearsay, and as turning around saying “go and speak to somebody else”. Sir, the leader of his party did not have to “fynkam” anything at all. He was approached directly by the Press, and his attention was drawn to these reports.

The hon the Leader of the House was actually dealing with the default on the part of the leader of his party in this matter. I must say with great regret that in this respect, to the extent to which the hon the State President was aware of these reports and is quoted as responding to them, he has defaulted in his responsibility to his party, because his party was specifically mentioned as being involved in this matter. He has also defaulted in his responsibility as the head of government, because one of his Cabinet Ministers was drawn into this whole thing and was quoted to his knowledge.

Let us first get all the facts before we pass judgement!

No, Mr Speaker, I want to say the hon the State President defaulted in his responsibility as head of state to the extent that in that capacity he is a member of this Parliament. If, now that the hon the Leader of the House is aware of certain things that appeared in newspapers, he believes there should be an inquiry, why then did the leader of his party, who knew about it 2½ months ago, not believe that there should be an inquiry? [Interjections.] The hon the State President knew about it. I am not arguing about that. The Press said he knew about it and he did not deny it. The Press approached him on these rumours, and he was quoted verbatim.

Mr Speaker, will the hon member for Sea Point agree when I say that different publications of the Press gave different versions of what had been alleged?

But that is the very point!

Yes, Sir, that is the very point. [Interjections.] The hon the State President, who is also the leader of the NP, became aware of different interpretations. The hon the Leader of the House says because there are different interpretations there has to be an inquiry so that the truth can be established. Why did his leader not say so?

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Why did his leader not tell him about this?

Why does he have to say “ek fynkam nie opposisiekoerante nie”? [Interjections.]

*His leader could have told him straight out, but now that he knows, that inquiry must be held and the facts must be brought to light.

†Interestingly enough, the proposed enquiry— we will also deal with the one proposed in the next motion on the Order Paper—is not into the facts but merely into the correctness or otherwise of what the hon member for Lichtenburg said in this House. Be that as it may, there has been a dereliction of duty.

Our attitude is that looking at the matter as a whole, there is a case for investigating a possible breach of privilege. We cannot agree, however, with the terms in which this particular motion has been drawn up. Just as the next motion on the Order Paper is one-sided in limiting the proposed enquiry to the activities of the hon member for Lichtenburg, this one is one-sided in referring only to the Rev Hendrickse and Mr Vosloo.

I believe that this motion is inappropriate because it refers merely to what is alleged to have been said or written by two individuals in terms of section 10 (3) (1) of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, which deals with the publishing of false information. It then goes on—one should read this motion carefully—to base its case on statements made by Mr Hendrickse to the following effect:

In putting this forward as the grounds for investigation, they have merely taken what the hon member for Lichtenburg quoted, but it was not correctly quoted. They are actually asking for an investigation into a quotation used by the hon member for Lichtenburg which was not even correct. The quotation from which certain words were taken reads as follows:

There is another qualification:

However, hon members leave that out and quote what is left as a substantive statement by the Rev Hendrickse instead of using the quotations as they appeared in the Press.

In the first instance that one cannot expect us in these benches to support a motion which is based not on full quotations of what the Rev Hendrickse said but on the truncated quotations which the hon member for Lichtenburg sought to put before this House.

What newspaper are you quoting from?

I am quoting from Die Burger. [Interjections.]

The motion also refers to Mr Vosloo of Rapport. I assume he has been singled out to be part of this enquiry because it was his report which the hon member for Lichtenburg quoted from, but he is not the only person concerned. I am sure those hon members are aware that Die Burger of 2 and 4 November also reported on that very matter. Why must the investigation be primarily into Mr Vosloo? Is it because of the quotation used? [Interjections.]

It is because he said …

I believe that if there is to be an investigation, its terms of reference should not selectively favour the particular words used by the hon member for Lichtenburg. Let us see who has been responsible for a breach of privilege, but let us not predetermine whom we should investigate.

Thirdly, this motion does not deal with the other very important part of the matter. A breach of privilege can occur by what one says or publishes, but it can also occur because of what one has done. The hon member referred to this—it falls under section 10 (3) (d), “offering to or acceptance by any member or officer of Parliament of a bribe”—but it is not part of this motion. This motion therefore does not allow an investigation of whether the NP members were in fact guilty of the alleged bribery or not.

You are right.

It does not do that. It is limiting.

Of course.

Our view is therefore that if there has to be an investigation, we should not, by favouring either the NP or the CP, be selective as to whom we are going to investigate.

There should be an investigation into this matter. We cannot support this motion as it stands and I want to give notice now or indicate to hon members that in respect of the next motion, I shall move to insert an additional paragraph after paragraph (1):

It will help the hon the Minister. He can have the inquiry into the facts and, flowing from the inquiry into the facts, one can have a further inquiry to see whether there was a breach of privilege. The PFP believes that to be the appropriate way of dealing with it.

There have been some interesting by-products of these two motions, both of which call for the appointment of a select committee to be part of a joint committee of the Houses.

One of the most interesting breach of privilege cases which have occurred, occurred in 1960 in the case of Mr J Hamilton Russell and the editor of the Cape Times. Mr Russell was reported as having used the following words, inter alia, dealing with the old enlarged Senate:

Those were the words which the senators felt constituted a breach of privilege. It is interesting that there was a non-partisan approach. The father of the hon the Leader of the House—he was the Leader of the Senate—moved that there should be a select committee appointed. He was supported by Mr Conradie, who was the leader of the United Party in the Senate. So there was a unanimous recommendation that a select committee should be appointed.

As the rules then provided that a member of this House could not appear before a select committee of the Senate, there was a motion in this House, moved by the Minister of Labour and seconded by Mr Jack Higgerty, the Chief Whip of the United Party opposition, giving Mr Hamilton Russell, although he was a member of this House, leave to give evidence before the select committee of the other House. Both parties therefore agreed that something should be done although they did not agree upon the result in the end. Both agreed, however, that there are circumstances when one puts political differences aside and one reacts as parliamentarians to a particular issue.

In the end the Senate committee issued a report but it could not do anything to Mr Russell. It reported that fact to this House and this House had then to decide what action to take. There was a dispute between the Government, who accepted the report, and the UP, led by Sir De Villiers Graaff, who wanted to have the report referred to a committee of this House. In the event the UP were defeated. I see that the hon member for Berea, the hon member for Houghton, the hon member for Sea Point and the hon member for De Kuilen are the only four actors in that scene still left in this House. We all voted against the Government, against the acceptance of the report but, in spite of that, Mr Hamilton Russell was suspended for 14 days.

This motion introduces some very important issues such as the question of how the Government intends to deal with this matter before a joint committee. The Government has already indicated that, in order to get this going, they have had to negotiate with the other two Houses. I must assume that this joint committee will only become effective if each of the three Houses passes an identical motion. I presume that, even if one wanted something else, one would be limited. If the hon the Leader of the House had wanted a select committee to examine a breach of privilege, and the other Houses did not agree, he would not be able to have one. Why did he argue then in favour of a joint committee because, after all, when it came to the hon member for Lichtenburg, it was this House which decided what to do? It is appropriate …

It is because hon members of the other Houses are involved.

It was the same in the case of Mr Hamilton Russell. The other House was also involved and it decided to act.

Their relationship was different.

This is what I am coming to. On what basis is the joint committee going to come to a decision? Is it going to be a majority decision?

On the basis that committees …

Order! The hon member for Sea Point is now going too far.

I think it is critically important. This motion calls for the setting up of a joint committee of the three Houses, and I want to know on what basis it will come to a decision. Does it do so on the basis of a majority vote? Does it have to be a unanimous decision?

Order! The hon member is going too far. He is moving into the area of the next motion, and into the field of a select committee which may be appointed, and the hon member must come back to the question before the House.

Mr Speaker, I am speaking to this motion, namely:

Order! That is the question.

And I should like to canvass how they are going to report. If we are going to appoint a committee to do this work, how are they going to report? Do they report on the basis of a majority vote, or do they perhaps report to each House separately on the basis of a majority of each of the committees? These gentlemen here have moved this motion and the hon the Leader of the House will be moving a similar motion, and I believe he owes us an answer on this particular matter.

We believe that the situation has nothing to do with the hon member for Lichtenburg. He may have been the catalyst. It really has nothing to do with him. He was the catalyst who focused attention on it. I believe that the Leader of the NP, way back on 4 November of last year when he became aware of all this, had an obligation to his party, the Government and to this House to draw Mr Speaker’s attention to what had taken place and to ask for some further investigation.

In the circumstances we support the principle of an investigation into the question of a possible breach of privilege. However, we believe it would be better handled by extending the scope of the next motion and therefore, for the reasons I have given, we do not support this particular motion. It is too narrow and prescribed and directs its energies to one or two people only instead of flecking open the whole matter.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House do not want to take issue with the hon leader of the PFP on his remarks. I think he reads too little in our motion and finds too much which is not contained in it. The late Mr Vorster said every husband kisses his wife in his own way. I think we moved a motion which sought to do precisely what the hon leader of the PFP said we ought to do, and to achieve that object. He objected to our using a quotation and singling out Rev Hendrickse, but I am standing here with The Sunday Star of 8 November 1987 in my hand. The caption reads: “LP alleges bribes from Nats to delay elections”. The report reads:

That is not a quotation. One must read further.

The report goes on to state:

It is true that it is not a quotation, but it is a report on what he supposedly alleged. The word “alleged” is used. This is what The Sunday Star reported. Either The Sunday Star is wrong to say that this is what the Rev Hendrickse said, or otherwise it is a fact. The newspapers do not, after all, quote all of a person’s words. Surely they do not put every word between quotation marks if they publish a report on a person.

As far as I am concerned, we used these examples because they were specific examples of allegations which these people made. The Rev Hendrickse made one kind and Mr Vosloo another kind of allegation, but both allegations reflect on NP members of this House.

However, I have the same kind of misgivings as the hon the leader of the PFP about the Government’s opposition to our motion. Because the hon the Leader of the House referred to it, I want to say that they are occupied with a further charge sheet against the hon member for Lichtenburg.

The issue for them is solely to get at the hon member for Lichtenburg.

We also want to have the attack on the credibility of the hon the State President investigated.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that as far as the CP is concerned, the hon member for Lichtenburg has been tried, found guilty and punished by this House. If the Government is going to carry out its investigation in such a way that it amounts to an inquisition against or a prosecution of the hon member for Lichtenburg, we shall go to the maximum within the legal rules of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Soutpansberg that the debate he is now conducting has in my opinion absolutely nothing to do with the motion before this House. He must come back to the motion.

As it pleases you, Sir. I just want to deal quickly with the arguments of the hon the Leader of the House. I want to ask him who he is impressing when he asks why we did not do anything about this. Are we the Government of the country? Are the reflections being cast on the representatives of our party in this place? [Interjections.]

But you are submitting it now.

We are doing it now, yes.

We are doing it because you did nothing about it. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said that they were in fact working on it. He was so preoccupied with the naming of the hon member for Lichtenburg that he was not ready the next day when my hon colleague gave notice of a motion. He then said he was working on it, he would come to it; and he did so after the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, when he replied to the speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg, had referred him to Rev Hendrickse, as the hon the State President had done at the end of October 1987.

Are you disputing the facts …

Is that how a government reacts in respect of this kind of thing? The fact of the matter is that when our hon Chief Whip, the hon member for Brakpan, said that he was giving notice of a motion, the hon the Leader of the House was not yet ready to introduce his motion. If his attitude had been right, I think we could perhaps have arrived at the idea which was expressed by the hon the leader of the PFP. However, I do not think that the hon the Leader of the House and his party will be interested in anything like that.

I think my hon colleague, the hon member for Brakpan did this House a favour by coming forward with this motion, and I gladly support him.

Mr Speaker, I do not support the motion of the hon member for Brakpan, for the reasons already set out earlier in this debate by the hon the Leader of the House. However, I just wanted to elaborate on it in a few words.

If one reads what breach of privilege entails, how members of Parliament themselves handle the disciplinary matters surrounding a breach of privilege, one cannot but agree that one is dealing with a wonderful culture in connection with Parliament. One of the most exciting aspects is most certainly the fact that members of Parliament themselves guard over the privileges which are granted to them.

A member of Parliament cannot carry out his functions properly if he is not equipped with the privileges of Parliament. That is why it is important that Parliament should guard jealously over its privileges and the integrity of members of Parliament. When these are jeopardised we must look into the matter shamelessly and implacably. However, I think that here and there in this debate there has been an element of spitefulness. We are most certainly striving to find the truth. When the truth is found in reaction to the hon member’s motion, there is most certainly no impediment to extending the terms of reference of the joint committee in such a way as to examine breach of privilege further.

May I say to the hon member for Sea Point, in reaction to his question and his amendment, that there are two elements involved. In the first place different Houses pass different motions, and when that happens he does not achieve the object he is seeking to attain. When this committee has completed its business, there is no impediment to its terms of reference being extended to consider and investigate a breach of privilege as well. To my mind there is no doubt at all that everyone on this side of the House is seeking the truth and will be prepared to guard jealously over our privileges.

Mr Speaker, I just want to mention a few points. In the first place, the hon member for Soutpansberg has already referred to the ridiculous question of the hon the Leader of the House, namely why we did not introduce the motion. I just want to emphasise that it is preeminently the task of the Government to act in such a case. It is hon members of the NP who have been offended in this connection. It goes without saying, since we are accustomed to a Government which acts impulsively in similar cases and did not do so here, that it is astonishing to us that steps are only being taken after we moved this motion.

The hon the Leader of the House said the Government acted in accordance with the rules by reaching consensus in advance with the Chairmen of the other Houses. They then asked what we were going to achieve by moving a motion of this nature at this stage unless we had first cleared the matter with hon members of the other Houses. I just want to remind the hon the Leader of the House that we moved a similar motion in the case of Mr Rajbansi, which was passed by the House of Representatives, but was eventually not passed by the House of Delegates. Unfortunately we got no further with that motion as a result of a vacuum in the rules of this House. After all, it can still happen, in spite of what the hon the Leader of the House said, that one of the other Houses negatives the motion which will be moved just now. Then it is another indictment against this new dispensation that, in the case of such a serious charge as this one, namely an alleged breach of privilege, one has to leave it at that and cannot proceed before the approval of hon members of the other Houses has been obtained. It therefore makes a farce of the whole procedure of Parliament.

I do not know whether I understood the hon member for Krugersdorp correctly. I take it that he interprets the motion which is going to be moved just now as one which does not include the investigation of breach of privilege, because he says the terms of reference can be subsequently extended to include that as well. That is not good enough for us. We feel that the determination of possible breach of privilege should definitely be included in the terms of reference of the select committee that has to investigate this matter. This is being fully anticipated in the motion which is now before this House, and we ask that it should be included specifically in the terms of reference of the select committee. In the Government’s motion, which will be moved later, and which we can argue about later, it does not seem as though the investigation into a breach of privilege is a possibility. It has in fact been raised by the hon the Leader of the House and by other members of the Cabinet that there is a question of possible breach of privilege here. All we are asking of the Government is, if it is a prima facie breach of privilege, to allow a select committee to be appointed to investigate this very issue.

Question negatived (Official Opposition dissenting)-

Mr Speaker, it is my privilege to move the motion which appears in my name on the Order Paper, and which reads as follows:

1. (1) That a select committee be appointed to form part of a joint committee to enquire into and report upon the correctness or otherwise of allegations quoted and made by the honourable member for Lichtenburg on 9 February 1988 in a speech in the House of Assembly to the effect that members of Parliament were probably guilty of bribery or attempted bribery and that the State President presumably failed or refused to investigate or cause to be investigated allegations in that regard because he allegedly knew that such allegations were true or because he was afraid that they would be proved to be true; and
2. (2) that the joint committee be empowered to take evidence and call for papers.

Mr Speaker, we now have before us the motion, which is stated in very complex language, and which is an attempt to protect the NPs partner in the coalition dispensation, and a further attempt to prejudice and denigrate the hon member for Lichtenburg even further.

Order! The hon member is not entitled to read denigration of the hon member for Lichtenburg into the motion. I think the hon member is going too far.

Mr Speaker, in this connection I want to address you as follows. Since the hon member for Lichtenburg has already been named and punished in regard to certain events which took place here, and the aspect of the hon member for Lichtenburg’s conduct has therefore already been disposed of, I want to submit that autrefois convict can be pleaded in the case of the hon member for Lichtenburg. This select committee must now institute an investigation into the correctness or otherwise of allegations made by the hon member for Lichtenburg.

And the quotations!

And the quotations he made. Consequently it is possible that another prejudicial finding can be made in respect of the hon member for Lichtenburg, who has already been punished.

Mr Speaker, I should like to know from the hon member whether he concedes that the allegations quoted by the hon member for Lichtenburg implicate members of this House, while the inferences he drew from them implicate the hon the State President, and whether my motion will not have the result that the truth in respect of the allegations concerning hon members, as well as of the hon member for Lichtenburg’s allegations concerning the hon the State President—he was the only person who did that—will be investigated?

Let us presuppose what the select committee is going to find. The only terms of reference which this select committee has in accordance with this motion moved by the hon the Leader of the House is to establish whether or not the allegations and quotations are correct, and to report on them to the House. In the second place, it can find whether the deductions and assumptions of the hon member for Lichtenburg were correct or not.

Do you not want to know? That is what we want to know.

We do want to know, but what does the House do after that?

Then we take steps.

That must then be inserted in the terms of reference of the committee.

Then we know whether we must take steps.

Then this motion of the hon the Leader of the House is not complete. He should then have inserted “and make such recommendations as such a select committee may deem it necessary to make under the circumstances”. Then there would be a little sense in this motion. Merely to propose that we should institute an investigation into the truth of the allegations makes no sense whatsoever. We want to know what the terms of reference of that select committee are. We are going to vote for this motion in any event, because we are not afraid to investigate these things.

It is the NP that was afraid to look into these things, because they did nothing about it between 31 October and the present. Those hon members therefore have no reason to make interjections concerning this matter; they stand indicted.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You ruled that the hon member must withdraw the word “denigration”. Now I just want to ascertain whether he is still replying to that and are you going to give your ruling in that regard, because I agree with the hon the Leader of the House that the motion before the House is not concerned with denigration. The argument of the hon member for Lichtenburg was concerned with the matter which he raised against the hon the State President. That is why steps were taken against him.

Order! I have appreciation for the hon member’s contribution, but in my opinion it is not really a point of order. The question of denigration has already been raised by the Chair with the hon member for Brakpan and the hon member reacted to it and proceeded with his argument. The hon member for Brakpan may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I just want to emphasise to the hon the Leader of the House that these terms of reference which the select committee will receive, are limited. Ultimately their findings will not take the matter any further. We shall support the motion, because it is second-best. We actually wanted the best, but for some reason or other which only the Government will understand, they prefer this wording. However, we ask the hon the Leader of the House at least to give the committee terms of reference enabling it to arrive at some kind of finding.

Mr Speaker, I am sure that the hon the Leader of the House, in retrospect, will agree with me that this motion is in fact too narrow. The substance of it is “to enquire into and report upon the correctness or otherwise of allegations quoted and made by the hon member for Lichtenburg”. Surely we want a wider investigation than just an investigation as to whether the hon member for Lichtenburg was right or wrong? It should surely go beyond that. I therefore move as an amendment:

This allows the committee both to test the hon member for Lichtenburg on accuracy, and to test the whole event and the events surrounding it to see whether there was in fact a breach of privilege.

Mr Speaker, the essence of this matter is that we are trying with this motion not only to investigate alleged breach of privilege, because one may find that there was breach of privilege, but then one has still not in any way made a finding on the truth of the matter. Against that background, and in view of the fact that it does not exclude breach of privilege, I want to argue that we should accept this motion by the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, in reply I should like to say that my motion, in the first place, is broader than the previous motion because two matters will be investigated and the truth about them will be determined. In the first place there will be an investigation into whether there is any truth in the allegation that hon members on this side were guilty of bribery or attempted bribery, and in the second place the truth of the allegation that there are grounds for suspecting that the hon the State President knew about it and did not take any steps, from his position of authority, while he did in fact know about it, will be investigated.

If we cause the other matter to be investigated, we are really investigating only the question of the hon members, and not the question of the implicit charge against the hon the State President.

As regards the broadening of the terms of reference of the committee, as advocated, I do not think that that is necessary. Nothing the hon members want done is excluded. This can and will follow when we have all the facts before us. Our first priority is to obtain the facts. The motion covers that, and as soon as we have the facts, this House and every other House can decide what to do on the basis of those facts.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).

Main question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows:

1. (1) That a select committee be appointed to form part of a joint committee to enquire into and report upon the correctness or otherwise of allegations quoted and made by the honourable member for Lichtenburg on 9 February 1988 in a speech in the House of Assembly to the effect that members of Parliament were probably guilty of bribery or attempted bribery and that the State President presumably failed or refused to investigate or cause to be investigated allegations in that regard because he allegedly knew that such allegations were true or because he was afraid that they would be proved to be true; and
2. (2) that the joint committee be empowered to take evidence and call for papers.

I do not want to prejudice the findings of that committee by entering into a debate, and I certainly do not want to abuse parliamentary privilege, Sir, but, with your permission, I should like to recommend that the following members serve on that committee: The hon member for Haarlem, the hon member for Bethelsdorp, the hon member for Swartland, the hon member Mr Lockey, the hon the Minister of the Budget, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Order! Before calling on the hon member for Schauderville to speak, I want to refer to my undertaking to give a ruling today in consequence of a question by the hon member for Mamre about words used by the hon member for Border. I have not yet received a copy of the relevant Hansard, but as soon as it is available I shall give my ruling in this regard.

I should also like to wish the hon the Minister and the Government everything of the best in these difficult times, particularly as far as the national economy is concerned. Hon members should also remember that this is a three-hour debate.

Mr Chairman, the headlines on the centre pages of the Business Times of 7 February 1986 screamed out: “Watershed switch to a new economic era”. This was a summarised version of the speech of the hon the State President at the opening of this session of Parliament. Sir, one hopes indeed that this will herald a new economic order and era.

*It has been clear to us for a long time that fundamental adjustments and changes are necessary in the South African economy if this country is to maintain the necessary growth rate to meet the demands and expectations of all its inhabitants. These adjustments are also necessary to ensure that the political, social and economic demands of South Africa’s growing population are met in the years ahead. The simple fact of the matter is that between 1980 and the year 2000 South Africa’s population, including that of the TVBC countries, will increase from 29,5 million to approximately 47 million people. The Government has already committed itself to the improvement of the standard of living of all its people. It has, therefore, created expectations that must be met.

The extent of our future economic growth will have to be such that the historical backlog will be eliminated. However, the Government will have to reconsider its priorities, as the hon the State President has indicated. Furthermore, the Government must recognise that our resources should be utilised to remove those factors which hamper the economy.

The country’s resources should be utilised circumspectly and any obstacles, particularly those of a political nature, should be removed immediately to enable us to lay the foundation of a new economic era, otherwise all those noble intentions expressed in the hon the State President’s opening address will remain idle words.

†It is precisely because of its limited resources, Sir, that this country cannot afford wasteful expenditure. This country cannot afford the duplication of services and facilities merely to provide these for the different races.

*Hon members may note, for example, the absurd situation prevailing in respect of our education systems. On the one hand the Whites are experiencing a surplus of teachers and schools, while on the other, people of colour are anxiously clamouring for more. It was reported somewhere that 1 166 teachers at White Government schools have lost their jobs over the past five years because of a decrease in student numbers. Many rural schools have been closed down while others in the urban areas have been compelled to amalgamate in order to avert total closure. In fact, the Department of Education and Culture in the Administration: House of Assembly is considering the closure of three White schools in the Durban area at the moment. In contrast with this, there is a shortage of 5 400 classrooms for Coloured children alone. In Port Elizabeth mobile units are being used to an increasing extent due to lack of space.

As far as the Blacks are concerned, there is a shortage of 1 494 classrooms for primary school children and 3 030 for secondary school children. On the other hand, 50 000—yes, 50 000, Sir!— classrooms and the same number of teachers will be needed by the year 2000, according to the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid.

One could go on and on, pointing out the surplus of schools and teachers in the White educational system in contrast with the severe shortage in the Black and Coloured communities.

†Where, then, lies the sense in separate education? Let us forget, for the moment, the fiction that it is supposed to be “separate, but equal”. Those White teachers who were dismissed and trained at the taxpayers’ expense could be a boon to Black education. At the end of 1985 as many as 42 016 Black teachers employed by the Department of Education and Training did not have what is regarded as a minimum qualification, and 30 089 had not even passed Std 10. Despite this, the State is prepared to dispense with the services of more than 1 000 well-trained teachers. Now I ask you, Sir, with tears in my eyes: What kind of logic is that?

Do not cry.

One needs to cry about this. It is a tragic waste of human and financial resources that is crying out for urgent correction. The system is totally artificial, but it can only be remedied when the Government summons up the courage to divorce itself finally from what the hon the State President called “the outmoded concept of apartheid”. I am aware, Sir, that this Government has become very sensitive to the word “apartheid”, but that is simply what it is.

Let us take another example of this wastefulness. Dower Training College in Port Elizabeth, a teachers’ training college for Coloureds, received over 1 800 applications from prospective first-year students this year, and its allotted intake is 280. In contrast, the Port Elizabeth Teachers’ College, which is a White college, hopes to fill its first-year quota of 55—only 55. Yet the Department of Education and Culture in the Administration: House of Assembly made a decision to close at least two White colleges, viz Paarl and Oudtshoorn at the end of 1989.

The buildings of the college in Oudtshoorn will be taken over by the SADF.

The problem in this country is that the Government insists on training White teachers for Whites, Black teachers for Blacks, Coloured teachers for Coloureds and Indian teachers for Indians, instead of training teachers for South Africa. We will never be able to put this country on the road to a new economic era and prosperity until this ridiculous waste is eliminated. Our education system should also become relevant in order that it may serve the demands of the economy. Underutilized White schools and colleges should either be opened, or at the very least, handed over to people of colour.

*I am serious when I say that this country does not have an inexhaustible fountain of resources and that we should, therefore, utilise our resources with the utmost caution. The Government is talking about the disposal of State assets through a process of privatisation, and the capital realised in this way must also be utilised with the utmost caution and regard to cost-effectiveness.

One of the most daunting challenges facing the Government is the demand for affordable housing. The Development Bank of Southern Africa estimates the housing shortage in the independent states at about 125 000 units. If this figure is added to the backlog of 161 000 units in the non-independent states and estimates of a backlog of 832 000 outside the national states, the total shortage comes to about 1,1 million units. The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in this House estimates the housing shortage at between 90 000 and 100 000 units in the Coloured community alone. The previous official estimate was 52 000 units and I quote what the hon the Minister said last year:

†I believe that the Government will also have to give attention to the present housing subsidy which benefits Whites predominantly. It is a fact that most home-owners have access to property only because they receive a Government or employer housing subsidy, otherwise a substantial number of South Africans would be unable to buy affordable housing. The hon the Minister of Finance, and the Government, could give consideration to a more equitable subsidy system, such as the British system of tax rebates on mortgages. It is clear that a severe strain will be placed on this country’s limited resources, now and in the future.

Another example is our health care services. More resources are being allocated to services used by Whites, than to the provision of health services for those living their lives in poverty. According to Prof Michael Savage, the South African medical services are dominated and controlled by Whites and permeated with segregated structures. Many medical facilities are segregated and, inevitably, are neither equal in terms of their physical capacities or quality, nor in terms of the quality of care they offer.

There can be no other country in which the duplication of expensive facilities, on an unequal basis and on the grounds of colour, is so widespread. I can go on ad nauseam about the inequalities in our socioeconomic fabric and about the unnecessary duplication of services and facilities. I do not want to apportion blame, because the hon the Minister of Finance is an inheritor of this particular situation himself.

[Inaudible.]

However, in order to rectify the situation, we will have to use our resources with the utmost circumspection and in the interests of all South Africa’s people.

Sir, if the hon member for Mamre wants to apportion blame, he is free to put his name on the speakers’ list, and then apportion blame to the hon the Minister of Finance.

It is a fact that many of us—even some hon members in the NP—feel sorry about the past. However, it is the hon the Minister’s function, as Minister of Finance, to rectify the situation.

You are being apologetic!

I am not being apologetic about it.

If you want to be in the opposition party, then be a member of the opposition!

Order! I request the hon member for Mamre to keep quiet. [Interjections.]

The radicalism which is being displayed by the hon member for Mamre is merely a veneer. If one were to scratch just a little deeper, one would see the underlying conservatism in him.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Mamre must contain himself. The hon member for Schauderville may proceed. [Interjections.]

Sir, it was not my intention to attack hon members on the other side of the House. I am addressing myself to the Government directly, but if hon members want to interject, I will deal with them.

The limited resources in this country must be used in the most productive, efficient and cost-effective manner. If we are serious about entering into a new economic era, the Government must seriously reconsider its priorities and the use of the State’s limited resources. Ideological considerations should not be the determining factor.

Yesterday in this House, in reply to a question by the hon member Mr Douw, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid quoted the hon the State President as having said that the consolidation of the homelands would cost the State something in the region of R1 billion. This is an enormous amount of money which could have been put to better use. I consider this to be wasteful expenditure which this country can ill afford. This is an example of the type of expenditure which has caused Government spending to rise to almost uncontrollable limits and which has placed severe demands on the individual taxpayer.

We have absolutely no objection to expenditure in the socioeconomic field—especially in respect of education, health services and housing. We therefore welcome the hon the State President’s statement that humanitarian services for the less privileged will enjoy a high degree of preference in the determination of priorities. This type of expenditure is necessary for the creation of a happy and contented populace and also of a stable society.

However, if the Government is serious—we would like to believe that it is—about its intention to bring the budget back within affordable limits and sound fiscal proportions within a reasonable period, the duplication of services and goods, merely to ensure racial separation, will have to cease.

Mr Chairman, to start with may I apologise to the hon the Minister for the fact that I will most probably not be here when he replies, because I have to attend a standing committee meeting right after this.

I want to start by wishing the hon the Minister everything of the best on the courageous course he has adopted to bring about a complete economic change in South Africa. This was not a popular step. The fact that civil servants and teachers are not going to receive salary increases this year, will probably have political repercussions. It is not the task of the Government only to do popular things. The Government must also plan for the future and bear in mind that the decisions taken today will affect our descendants tomorrow. I therefore want to support the hon the Minister whole-heartedly in this regard.

I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister on his privatisation initiatives in Government organisations. This is the only way in which one can eventually create more prosperity, as well as a broader base for prosperity. I also want to wish him everything of the best in this regard.

However, I want to single out an important point, namely that the State has a responsibility to provide basic services for the underprivileged section of our population. They constitute a large component of our population. Services such as health, welfare, education and housing for the lower income groups in particular must never become the function of the private sector only, because the State has an irrevocable responsibility to provide these services for these people.

I want to refer briefly to the no-confidence speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. In this speech he questioned inter alia whether the Labour Party was the official opposition in Parliament. In his speech the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said the following, and I am quoting:

By saying this, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is admitting that the LP has the ability to put an end to this tricameral Parliament and in this way destroy the party of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. His party was born out of the tricameral Parliament and their existence is therefore linked to it. However, the LP will continue to exist after the tricameral Parliament has ceased to function, because the LP recently held its 22nd annual congress with 5 000 delegates in the Transvaal. The congress was held in the Skilpadsaal—the symbolic stronghold of Afrikaner conservatism. The LP’s survival is definitely not linked to the survival of the tricameral Parliament. The survival of the party of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is.

I want to get back to the new opposition party, the newborn baby. The UDP is the youngest party in the tricameral Parliament. [Interjections.] I get the impression that this party’s constitution was written with the assistance of a few bottles of whisky. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I shall indicate why I say so.

Order! No! Will the hon member please withdraw those words.

I withdraw them unconditionally. When one reads the preamble to this constitution, one gets the impression that the members became weary. The later it got, the more weary they became. Consider the economic policy as contained in the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I quote:

Heaven alone knows what kind of economic policy he means by this. To me an economic policy means a free market system, a capitalist system, a socialist system, but to say “… we shall propagate an economic order which will satisfy the just aspirations of all South Africans” is really a sorry bit of work. One gets the impression that they became weary when they got to the economic policy. Preserve us from the day when they have to take decisions on the economic future of this country. [Interjections.]

Sir, I blame the hon member for Schauderville, because he was the LP’s spokeman on finance. The hon member knows something about finance. However, he became so weary that he could not come up with something decent for his party. At the end of this constitution—simply to have a document which covers everything—they took a shortcut. When they could not think of all the facets and aspects of a party’s policy, they simply said: “We blanketly support the Freedom Charter.” [Interjections.] There is no place and time for such an opportunistic opposition in this country.

Last year their opportunism was destroyed in Gelvandale and Northern Transvaal when they had a poor sick pensioner standing against the LP. Then they sent the pensioner an account of more than R5 000 … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That is not true.

This Official Opposition …

Order! The hon member for Border says that is not true, and the hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] I want to go on and say that the Official Opposition must stop misusing innocent people to achieve their own objectives in their opportunistic endeavour to get at people in the LP.

I now want to go on and place the main dilemma in Coloured community life in a broader perspective. An interesting book I want to recommend to the Official Opposition as reading matter, is a book which appeared recently entitled Between the wire and the wall. The author is Gavin Lewis. In the book Coloured politics of the past century is analysed. The author sets things out clinically and gives an historic survey. We can learn valuable lessons from that book.

It would seem that there were two prominent schools of thought in Coloured politics. These two dominant schools of thought had such an influence on one another that they eventually put a stop to the progress of the so-called Coloureds. In the ’forties one had the Coloured Advisory Council which was established by J C Smuts on the one side, while on the other one had the boycotters—the APO. [Interjections.] In education circles there was the TLSA and the Tepa. The TLSA represented the boycotters and the Tepa the good Coloureds, those people who were still willing to go to tea and talk. [Interjections.]

In this long run-up to Coloured politics one can therefore single out two dominant groups. On the one hand there was the group in favour of boycotts, resistance and rebellion. On the other there was the group in favour of co-operation, support and standing hat in hand, waiting for hand-outs. [Interjections.] The hon member does not understand what the LP is doing. For the first time in the history of this country the LP is in a constitutional position of power. Our task in this Parliament is to give support where support is necessary for progress, as is the case with these economic initiatives of the hon the Minister. On the other hand the LP is in a strong position. As I pointed out before, we were not, like the party of the hon member, established in this tricameral Parliament. We are not begging for a non-racial future. We are negotiating for it from a position of power and strength. [Interjections.]

It is not our objective to destroy orderly government in this country. However, we are not prepared to be the lackeys and out-riders in this Government any longer either. We want to be full-fledged partners. We want our party and our party’s view and policy to be taken into consideration when the future of this country is formulated.

I want to get back to a very interesting report which appeared in the Sunday Times. The report was written in consequence of the visit by the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party to the hon the State President. They are such a small party that they can all visit the State President. On 31 January a report which was written by the political editor, Mr Norman West, appeared on page 2 of the extra edition of the Sunday Times. In this article many wasteful things concerning the points of departure of our newly established opposition party become evident. The article reads:

It is because they are afraid to participate in an election. [Interjections.]

You have never even fought an election.

Resign, and then I will stand against you. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those hon members are afraid. They want to lengthen the period of office of the tricameral Parliament as much as possible, because they realise that their existence is linked to that of this tricameral Parliament.

Then follows an interesting sentence:

[Interjections.] These are the people who are posing as our opposition. These are the people who are suggesting that they can negotiate better than we can.

A very interesting point which in my opinion will also be very important for Hansard purposes is the following, which became apparent from the visit to the hon the State President. I quote:

Let us consider the “bid for the crown” by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his right-hand man, the hon member for Schauderville. The report reads:

This, Sir, is the most important reason why they are in the opposition benches today. It is not matters of principle which are at issue. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says from political platforms that he does not disagree at all with the Labour Party’s policy. What is at issue, therefore, is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition cannot forgive the hon the Leader of the LP because he never became a Minister. [Interjections.]

No, that is the direction in which you lot are moving.

The hon member for Schauderville went so far as to say that if he did not become a Ministerial representative, he would resign from the party. He then left.

That is not true.

It is important to note that he left soon after those Ministerial representatives were appointed.

Order! The hon member for Schauderville would do better to stand up and try to prove the contrary. It is assumed that all hon members in this House will tell the truth. If another hon member feels that this is not the truth, he must stand up and draw my attention to that fact.

Mr Chairman, I would not like to make myself guilty of reprehensible behaviour and personal attacks.

You already have.

The hon member for Schauderville wanted to quarrel with me in the presence of a political journalist at the home of the hon member for Addo because he was not appointed Deputy Minister of Population Development. [Interjections.] I challenge him to deny that. He wanted to quarrel with me about this. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Retreat must control himself.

From my entire argument it is clear that we are not dealing with policy differences here.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member Mr Lockey is misleading the House. He must prove that I wanted to quarrel with him. He is injuring my integrity. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon Chief Whip must control himself.

I want to tell the hon member that his presence in the opposition benches proves that he has no integrity.

Order! The hon member cannot doubt the integrity of another hon member.

Sir, I withdraw that.

I can mention the political journalist’s name; he was Mr Patrick Cull of the Evening Post.

What does that prove? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon Whip suggest they should have a fist fight?

Sir, I said it proved that hon member could not box.

Order! The hon member must not kick up such a fuss.

Sir, I now want to get back to the allegation that an election next year can only benefit the right wing. At the moment we have a governing party in the House of Assembly which percentage-wise has the largest majority in the history of this country. If my figure is correct, at present there are 127 members in the NP benches. In spite of the large majority, we have seen retrogression as regards political and constitutional reform. What decisive reform has taken place since the May 1987 election?

Last year we saw the performance by the hon the State President during the discussion of his Vote in the House after hon members of my party had stated their grievances in a very subdued manner. We also witnessed the retrogressive reaction on the part of the Government to the report by the President’s Council; that they were no longer prepared totally to abolish separate amenities in spite of the fact that the President’s Council— which is NP-dominated—made such recommendations. It is therefore debatable whether the vast majority of Nationalists in the House of Assembly will make positive contributions to future constitutional reform. I think the opposite is true. My opinion is that the more the NP loses, the more dependent it will become on the support of other majority parties in the other Houses of Parliament, and the greater our role and say in the Government of the day will become.

Sir, after three years we have a general affairs Cabinet which is still 99,9% White. If the intention was to share power, we did not come here to share power with regard to own affairs only; we came here to share power across the entire spectrum of government. We want to have a say at that level and we want our party’s standpoint to count for something there too.

I think it was presumptuous of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to move a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. In spite of all the reversals we have suffered—economic and otherwise—I shall now indicate with reference to facts … [Interjections.] The hon member for Border is shaking his head. I do not come here and shout without knowing the facts. I have the facts here in front of me and will give them to the hon member. [Interjections.] We do not wear Balaclavas; we walk about in the streets without them.

Order! What did the hon member for Border say to the hon member Mr Lockey?

I said I was writing something; I did not shake my head.

Sir, I accept that.

As regards housing I want to mention the following figures. Between 1 January 1986 and 15 July 1987, 4 600 hectares of land were proclaimed for Coloured housing. In the corresponding period only 253 ha were proclaimed for Indian housing. It is therefore absolutely presumptuous to say that the Ministers’ Council is not doing anything apart from ensuring that houses worth half a million rand are being built for them, and that nothing is being done about the housing problem of the inhabitants of the country. Hon members can go and read this article in Financial Mail of 11 September 1987. By the end of 1987, 25% of the rented houses falling under the House of Representatives had already been sold. The sales were further facilitated by a monthly repayment on the purchase contract, the calculation of which would be based on the income of the buyer rather than on the value of the house. What this amounts to is that the Treasury and the State are subsidising needy buyers’ monthly repayments.

In the field of education there was an increase of 8,77% for White education, 16,1% for Coloureds, 10,46% for Indians and 25% for Blacks outside the national states in the 1987-88 budget—the present financial year. Although the ideal has not yet been achieved and the challenges are still facing us, there is definitely a significant improvement on the per capita expenditure for 1986.

Sir, I want to refer to the 1986-87 figures. My quote is from Business Day of 25 May 1987. The per capita expenditure for a White child in primary and secondary school totals R2 746; for Indians R1 952; for Coloureds R1 330 and for Blacks R395.

I hope that during the forthcoming financial year we shall see a greater increase in expenditure, on education, particularly for Blacks and Coloureds, because judging by these figures it is clear that there is still a tremendous disparity in this field. We understand that a large part of education expenditure will be for teachers’ salaries. However, as teachers’ salaries improve, the per capita expenditure improves. It is, however, certain that disparities other than salary disparities— resulting from qualification differences—do still exist.

As regards political order, the Ministers’ Council took the courageous step of throwing our schools open. They set the example by throwing our schools open to everyone who wants to attend them. White teachers can be appointed to our schools on a permanent basis, and any child of any colour can attend classes there. The University of the Western Cape, which is also financed by the Administration: House of Representatives, is one of the few universities which can really claim that it is a non-racial university and that it totally ignores the quota system.

In the field of health services and welfare, I want to quote figures in connection with child mortality rates. I am referring to the averages in the main metropolitan centres. The average for South Africa is 36,9 per 1 000 children. In order to draw comparisons between the respective population groups, we can quote the 1984 child mortality figures: Whites—12,5 per 1 000 children; Indians—12,7 per 1 000; Coloureds—29,3 per 1 000 children; and Coloureds in the rural areas—65,9 per 1 000 children in 1984. Hon members can see how drastically they differ from one another if they compare the 12,5 with the 65,9. In 1981 the figure was 81,5 per 1 000 Coloured children in the rural areas. Even in this field, therefore, there has been a significant decrease. Hon members can obtain more information on this in Financial Mail of 25 September 1987. The hon the Minister of National Education and Population Development made the facts available.

All these statistics indicate once again that we have not yet achieved the ideal, and that is what our party is still striving to achieve. However, we must guard against acting like certain people in such a selfish and short-sighted manner that we strive only for the welfare and sociological promotion of the Coloureds at the expense of other people.

I want to discuss another matter. I consider it absolutely reprehensible that SABC TV afforded the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a platform, after he had visited the hon the State President, to make unsubstantiated allegations regarding political appointments in our education, as well as with regard to housing and welfare, without affording any hon Minister in our Ministers’ Council an opportunity to put our side of the case. Sir, I consider this to be absolutely reprehensible.

In conclusion I want to talk about the tremendous fuss which was made of our ostensibly not being the Official Opposition in this Parliament. However, hon members should go and read Die Burger and other newspapers of the Nasionale Pers group, and there they will be able to see how we are attacked day after day. They can look at the hysterical protests in Afrikaans newspapers against the LP’s resistance to a “yes, master” strategy. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke inter alia to the hon the State President and four provincial leaders of the NP about discriminatory legislation, and he admitted openly in the TV interview that they could not achieve anything in respect of the matter of discriminatory legislation. What remains, therefore, for him to negotiate on which we have not already negotiated on?

When one considers the total campaign which the SABC and the Afrikaans Press are waging against us at the moment, one feels that it is so ironic that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is accusing the LP and its Ministers’ Council of impotence. On Monday, 8 February, there was another interview with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on SABC TV. To discuss what? To discuss us. There was a discussion on the tests the LP is subjecting the tricameral Parliament to. Statements were made without the LP having any say so that we could react to them.

All these facts indicate that we are in fact the Official Opposition, that there are fundamental differences between us and the NP, and that it is not our task to disrupt matters in this Parliament—we believe in orderly government—but that it is our task to get South Africa moving in the direction in which we will eventually have a free, democratic government, and a country in which the colour of a man’s skin will be the last thing people will look at when deciding on his merits.

Sir, I should like to concentrate my speech on the country’s economic and monetary policy. The hon member Mr Lockey dealt thoroughly with the political aspects.

The year 1988 will probably go down in history as the year of the big economic fight, the year in which all of us—I hope—will bring down the inflation rate by crushing the bogey of inflation, as they say. For this reason I should like to concentrate on the economic aspects.

Since the opening address of the hon the State President many things have changed. He adopted a course which had never been adopted in an opening address before, in that he devoted his speech entirely to economic growth and conditions in the country. The country must grow economically to look after the welfare and needs of everyone in this beautiful country of ours. During the past three years the growth rate has been fairly poor and it stagnated between approximately 1% and 2%. Last year—if the hon the Minister can remember—I talked about the same aspects and debated them. At that stage I told the hon the Minister that there was a definite lack of confidence in the country among the general public, in spite of the revival and incentive measures the hon the Minister pumped into the country’s economy last year.

Since June of last year matters have changed drastically and we have started to move in a direction in which we can maintain a growth rate of at least 2%. The 1% growth rate of 1985-86 is something we can now look back on as history. If one takes into consideration everything that happened, all the circumstances, the entire unrest scenario, the disinvestment campaign in America and the fact that more than R15 billion left the country between 1984 and 1986, South Africa is definitely a country one can be proud of. The hon the Minister and his Ministry had to intervene to save the country from bankruptcy, but as far as I am concerned—and I think the hon the Minister will agree with me—if, as far as our monetary policy is concerned, we want to lead the horse in the right direction, we will have to work together in South Africa. As my colleague who spoke before me said, we want to support the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Finance in the direction in which they are moving today.

Since the early seventies inflation has risen systematically until it reached a disgraceful 26% last year. It is gratifying when one thinks back to this to hope that the inflation rate will be between 14% and 18% this year. It is gratifying to us that after all these things, all the unrest and rioting which took place in an attempt to force South Africa in a certain direction, South Africa can live again and we can move in the direction of definite recovery.

The hon the State President spoke about cutbacks in order to straighten out the country’s economy. It is a pity that there are people who will be hurt in the process. There is something which is worrying me, and this concerns pensions for our aged. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to indicate, when he replies, in which direction we are going to move as regards pensions. Will the social pensions have to stagnate this year? We in this House feel that our people are definitely being neglected when it comes to social pensions. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether the Government will continue, as was originally decided, with the five-year plan with a view to parity, so that this House will be able to manage the financing of pensions from own funds from its own affairs budget. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare must be able to increase pensions. The bonus which has to be paid out in October of every year must also be retained. I should like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister to consider this direction, and not be an inhibitory influence if matters can develop in this direction.

Privatisation and deregulation were among the topics mentioned by the hon the State President. I want to pledge my wholehearted support to this. We support the hon the State President in this course he wants to adopt. However, I consider it to be of cardinal importance for something to be added to this, namely productivity—productivity not only in the sense of productive Government departments. I should like to suggest—it was apparent from Sunday’s newspapers that the hon the State President had already launched his economic campaign—that the hon the State President and the Ministry should go further, and launch a campaign bringing home the importance of productivity not only to companies but also to John Citizen. I believe that in spite of many problems we must start at the bottom, and get the man in the street to realise that we must be productive. We must be productive in the sense that we will have to adjust our daily lives. The man in the street must start saving; he must be able to move in a direction in which he will have more confidence in himself, and therefore also be able to build up confidence in the economy. It is a fact that the despondency of the man in the street has quite a number of political implications. History has taught us this. For this reason I believe that we must work together in South Africa to be more productive. We must, for example, export more. We must be able to turn the country’s economy around—from an agricultural country into a mechanised country—in that we must be productive as regards exports and the erection of factories. In this way hopefully we can get the country’s economy, to recover.

It is of cardinal importance for everyone in the country to work together. It is of no avail for us to launch a campaign in South Africa, and to talk about privatisation, deregulation and economising, if the man in the street does not realise that he must also save and be productive. There are two sides to a matter. The one side is that we must also have progress in the field of political reform. The economic factor is really of cardinal importance in the reform process. For that reason we support the Ministry and the hon the State President in this regard. We want to appeal to the hon the Minister to give attention to this campaign to encourage the man in the street to increase his productivity.

We all know that Government expenditure has got out of hand. However, I want to get back to the growth rate between 1985 and 1987.

Government expenditure is astronomically high. I think we will have to look at this. In 1985 Government expenditure was ridiculously high. Foreign debt totalled R23 billion in 1985 and within two years this figure had doubled to R46 billion. I should like to tell the hon the Minister that this is definitely something which will have to receive attention.

Government expenditure—as a matter of fact the entire monetary policy of the country—will have to be reconsidered. I want to tell the hon the Minister that we agree that something must be done about this. Sir, 96% of the country’s foreign debt is debt we have in the country. Only 4% is debt which South Africa has to pay to overseas countries. This puts a different complexion on things. It shows us that overseas countries have confidence in South Africa. Prior to 1980 overseas countries definitely had a lot of confidence in South Africa. They knew that South Africa would pay its debts.

This reminds me of something which was said frequently during the past year, namely that the Reserve Bank should have investigated this aspect of foreign debt. It was said that the Reserve Bank had neglected its duty by not taking positive steps against banks. They should have notified banks timeously that matters were getting out of hand. Some of these debts were short-term debts. Because of this South Africa was caught napping. Fortunately I am able to say that this is a thing of the past. I think that at present South Africa is moving in a direction in which everyone is going to work together.

We therefore support the hon the Minister’s campaign for this year. We hope that the necessary legislation will be introduced this year. I should like to make a further appeal to the hon the Minister to consider the productivity aspect of John Citizen, and to ensure that everyone is involved in this.

Mr Chairman, allow me to have a serious discussion with the hon the Minister today. I am quoting from p 3 of the constitution of the LP:

This is also the question I want to put to the hon the Minister today: Where do we go from here? The economist sees South Africa from his point of view; the geographer sees South Africa from his point of view; and the LP sees South Africa from their point of view. I want to know how the NP sees South Africa.

What must the new and final system look like? What will it look like in 1988? The new dispensation irrevocably committed the Government of South Africa to a process of political, social, settlement, economic and sociological reform in this country. What progress have we made with reform? To what extent have we reformed? Or have we reached the end of the road? Have we come to the end of a creation? Will we seek but find nothing?

The announcement of the State President’s new economic policy is welcome and is acceptable to those people living a life of plenty, but poverty is the prediction for those who have nothing. What is going to become of the rural towns, where today we have 45 pupils in a class? Health services are inadequate; even primary health care is lacking.

The hon the State President can announce all these economising measures if he decides to repeal all discriminatory legislation. We will then save millions of rand on the duplication of services and departments. The present system in South Africa is worrying me. In my opinion it is the image of partition. In this House it looks as though we are moving towards partition. It is very clear to us today that politically the Black people are being kept outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa. They are being hidden away in independent states. They are accommodated there, because the Whites still fear Black domination. Partition in the form of homelands has made great progress. Is this not true? The hon the Minister can attest to the fact that partition has made great progress.

Is that not perhaps also their aim with us? Do they not want to come back and force partition on us as well? I want us to learn from the mistakes made in 1910 when a unitary system was decided on for South Africa. The fact that both this system and partition failed, means that the only known and acceptable democratic system remaining to us today is a federation. This is the angle at which the LP views South Africa. We see South Africa as a federation. The Bible says one must love one’s neighbour as one loves oneself. This is the solution for our population composition.

In my speech I also want to talk about something which is worrying me, namely territorial allowances for Coloured farmers. This concerns the development of designated areas. Primarily it concerns the stabilisation of the country’s borders. In actual fact it has to guarantee the security buffer. Because it concerns the country’s borders, it is a general affair, and Coloured farmers should be included in this. I feel that as far as this matter is concerned, Coloured farmers should be treated the same as White farmers. It is also disappointing that the many Coloured farmers on the Botswana border, particularly in the rural area of Mier and from Witbank right through the Richtersveld to the mouth of the Orange River, which forms the border between the Republic and SWA, as well as the farmers in the Mafikeng district, perform the same function along these borders as the White farmers, but are excluded from the territorial allowance.

Why? When are we going to reform? When are we going to move towards a fair South Africa? Is the NP Government only there for its own people?

I want to ask for the relevant designated areas to be extended in such a way that the said farmers are included so that Coloured farmers in these areas also come into consideration for this financial assistance. The White farmers get this financial assistance free of charge. They do not pay it back. However, our farmers do not get it and the hon the Minister must please not tell me again today that this is a constitutional matter. This matter has been bandied about so much that I no longer know whether it belongs in this Parliament or outside.

I am not the country’s ruler.

In conclusion I want to refer briefly to the Leader of the Official Opposition. Yesterday he said in this House that I should see to matters in my constituency. I should like to invite him to my constituency. There is someone in Postmasburg who works for his party. We are waiting for him in Postmasburg so that he can come and see for himself what has been achieved there.

Where is Postmasburg?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said: I do not think one can be so close to the ground and still look up. That hon Leader told me that he did not go to church. Now I am asking the hon Leader not to lead us into temptation. When we pray we ask: Lead us not into temptation. If the hon Leader went to church he could profess that as well.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the hon member for Fish River had chased after his wife wielding a knife. I want to tell the hon member that when the maniacs are present we shall all chase after our wives wielding knives. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the State President made an urgent appeal to South Africa to “tighten our belts”. He said we should cut costs where we are able to and be more thrifty and, as the hon member for Western Free State also said, we must be more productive. It is praiseworthy to see that the hon the Minister of Finance suited the action to the word. His speech yesterday must surely have been one of the shortest Part Appropriation speeches ever made by a Minister of Finance. I hope the hon members in this House and in the other Houses will follow his example and not, as some of us do, take up our time by gossiping for two and a half hours.

Sit down.

We have spoken more than enough about reform. It is high time that we took positive action and implemented reform in a practical way. I think it is appropriate and desirable that we look back at the events of last week. One of our colleagues in the House of Assembly—I am not going to mention his name—said to me last week: “Look at what you are doing to the image of Parliament. Do you think it is right to sit for only three hours at such an important stage of the session while the other Houses are sitting for a full five days? In addition, you are being paid to do so." I think I should raise the matter, because I must have spoken to the hon member for a good half hour. He did apologize for not knowing what the political issues in our House are.

I must mention that 90% or more of our workload is in our constituencies.

Our constituencies are in such a critical position because in the first place our people have far fewer members representing them, unlike the House of Assembly. Secondly, our constituencies, towns and communities have been neglected over the years. Sir, if you see that some MPs are not here regularly—I am not referring to the Opposition, because I do not know what they do—you must know that we are engaged in important work in our constituencies.

He spoke about the image of Parliament. I asked him what he meant. Is it the White man’s image of Parliament; an image of privilege? Or is it our non-Whites’ image of Parliament; an image of oppression?

We did not come here to boost the White man’s image of Parliament. If that is the assumption, hon members in the House of Assembly—members of the white part of South Africa—should reflect on it. We came so that our people could also develop a pride in Parliament; so that they could also see an image of fairness, unity and peaceful coexistence in the parliamentary buildings. That is the image we are trying to create here. Our people would like to believe that Parliament will remove the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and all other offensive legislation from the Statute Books. They want to see us doing something about it here in Parliament.

I should like to make a very controversial statement. I want to say that the NP is discrediting the image of Parliament. The NP, which is the governing party, always waits for external pressure to be exerted on South Africa before they agree to legislation being amended. In that way they ensure that people outside Parliament are able to say that it is as a result of pressure from them that things are changing. The attitude of the hon the State President and the Government will cause us to think so as well. We shall also think that we as non-Whites are unable to manage anything from within Parliament if the hon the State President and the Government continue in the way they have for the past few weeks. They are seeking confrontation with us. We did not come here, however, to confront people. We came peacefully to see to the interests of our people; to change South Africa peacefully so that we and our children will be able to live here in peace. That is why we are here.

Let the initiative come from Parliament before pressure comes to bear from outside. We should be big enough to scrap the Group Areas Act, for example. The South African Institute of Race Relations recently made a study of interviews which were held with Black political leaders, businessmen and pressure groups. The findings confirm what we as a party have been saying to the Government. The Group Areas Act must go. The thought of local options, as recommended by the President’s Council, is unacceptable. Once again we say the total abolition of the Group Areas Act must be linked to the total integration of education. The same applies to the abolition of the Population Registration Act. Unless it is abolished in its entirety, it is pointless. I want to quote from the Die Vaderland of 23 November 1987. The article reads as follows:

Recently the newspapers have been so full of this that people from abroad have come out here to buy land for a song. That is what we shall have if the Group Areas Act remains on the Statute Books. The longer the Group Areas Act remains in existence the more it will cost to abolish tomorrow, and the more it will cost us, who are not White, to own property in a non-racial South Africa, because we shall have to pay more for the land that belonged to our parents and our forebears.

Sir, allow me to deviate briefly from this debate. I want to pay tribute to a family from Reigerpark. The mother of the family, Mrs Bet Jacobs—she is no relation of mine—died a month ago. Tant Bet, as she was known in that area—was one of those stalwart LP members. She had the honour of receiving the LP’s prized merit award during our annual congress in Port Elizabeth.

That is not true.

It is still hanging in her house.

Tant Bet was involved at all levels of the community—the women’s league and other organizations. Just name it, Sir, and Tant Bet was a member of that organisation. Most of our hon members here remember her son, Bennie Jacobs, whom we buried five years ago. I want to pay tribute to both mother and son. Their enthusiasm for the LP knew no limits. If Bennie had lived, he would be the member for the Reigerpark constituency today. I have no doubt about that.

Let me return to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He knows I never fight, and I do not want to fight with him of all people. I do, however, want to come back to him. I was one of the few people who had a lot of respect for him. As a party and parliamentary colleague and chairman of the LP in the Transvaal, he always commanded my loyalty. Often I defended him, also when they called him a “low-grade political opportunist”. I often defended him when others objected to his family life, because after all, we all have family problems. I defended him when others criticised him for the excessive support he gave to the Cape wine industry, because all of us, or many of us, are guilty of this. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to quote from a statement by Mr Speaker in the House of Assembly. Sir, since the beginning of this debate, personal remarks have continually been flung at the hon members of the Opposition. [Interjections.] I want to quote to you in full what Mr Speaker ruled in this regard in the House of Assembly. What I am referring to, occurred this morning as well. It does not concern politics. People’s personal lives are being dragged across the floor of the House, and we can do that too. [Interjections.]

The statement I want to quote is in Hansard, 23 February 1976, col 1713. Mr Speaker at the time ruled as follows:

I am quoting the ruling only up to this point because the rest does not deal with this matter. Mention has been made in the House of a drunken party. Questions are asked, such as: “Were you drunk?” and “Where is your wife?” and hon members have just heard that the constitution was written under the influence of whisky, and so on. [Interjections.] I want to put that as a point of order today.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has put a point of order and I thank him. I want to request all hon members to refrain from making such personal attacks in the House.

That applies to everyone.

Order! It applies to all hon members. I request hon members to confine themselves to the subject they have to address. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I am very glad if it has been because of me that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has realised that there is no name for the things which were said here last year and that hon members should stop denigrating each other. I do not malign anyone, but often when one wants to tell the truth, these things should rather not be said. I am glad the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition realises that if he can malign others, they can malign him even more.

I defended him when he left the Labour Party to establish another party. I said it was his democratic right, but it irks me—and here I am going to talk to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now—that he abused the funeral of an honest and sincere woman, stood on the pulpit— I shall not add anything to this—and told lies. The hon the Leader said the following about Tant Bet Jacobs …

On a point of order, Sir: Is an hon member entitled to say that another hon member was telling lies?

Order! It is unparliamentary to speak of lies. The hon member must withdraw the statement.

I withdraw the word “lies” and say the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition told untruths. According to the hon Leader tant Bet allegedly told him, "My child, great things await you. You have taken the right decision.” Ostensibly she was referring to his establishing a new party.

And what is more, at a funeral.

Yes, at a funeral. The hon member stood and told these untruths from the pulpit. That is why I feel … [Interjections.]

Order!

Tant Bet’s family members were angry that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition could have uttered such untruths.

One of her daughters asked me to set the record straight here. According to her and other members of the family her words were: “I have never resigned from the Labour Party. Nor am I interested in hopping from party to party.” [Interjections.]

Sir, I am addressing the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in saying that Reigerpark’s people want to know why he used this funeral to introduce Reigerpark to the members of his constituency. They asked whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was so politically bankrupt as to appoint members to his branch, nervously and deviously. They want to know why he does not hold a public meeting.

Sir, I have held three meetings already!

They want to know where the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition received a mandate to crawl like a traitor to the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

Order!

I withdraw that, Sir. The question arises whether hon members of the Opposition Party have suddenly become “good Coloureds”. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is a seasoned politician, and I respect him. If there are politicians in this House, he is one of them, but the Bible says that salt is worthless if it has lost its savour. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his hon colleagues must spell out to me why we and the rest of the voters should not consider them to be traitors.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I object to our being called traitors.

I am not saying they are traitors, Sir, I am saying that they must explain why we should not consider them as such.

The question arises why the hon the State President now suddenly receives them with open arms. They should ask themselves that. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask the hon member to come back to the subject under discussion from time to time.

I am going to do so now, Sir.

Do hon members of the Official Opposition really think the hon the State President is doing that because he has the interests of their voters at heart? Do they really think he has the interests of their party at heart?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That is an indictment against the hon the State President’s integrity. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Alra Park must withdraw those statements immediately.

Mr Chairman, the hon member must listen properly. I am asking whether the Official Opposition really thinks that the hon the State President has the interests of his party and those of their voters at heart. Do they think that is why the hon the State President called them in? Or was it in order to play the role of the traitor. They must listen very carefully, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “traitor”.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The implication of what the hon member was saying is that when the hon the State President receives someone, he does so under false pretences. The implication is that when the hon members approach the hon the State President to talk about the interests of their party or their voters, the hon the State President does not in fact receive them for that reason, but for other, false reasons. I want to submit humbly that that is an indictment against the integrity of the hon the State President, and no hon member in this or any other House ought to insinuate that. [Interjections.]

Order! I ask the hon member for Alra Park to withdraw what he said.

Mr Chairman, if I have put the hon the State President at a disadvantage by what I have said, I am prepared to withdraw it. It concerns the stage at which this was done, however, a critical stage in our political life.

Order! The hon member must withdraw what he said unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

We see from the hon the Minister of Finance’s speech that last year’s part appropriation was larger than this year’s because of the fact that the Main Budget was finalised at a later stage as a result of the election held by the House of Assembly in May.

With all due respect to the hon the Minister, those elections were a total waste of money. The entire parliamentary programme was upset last year. All three Houses were inconvenienced. Just think about the millions of rands from the parties’ coffers, members’ pockets and the Treasury. It costs a great deal of money every time Parliament resumes or adjourns. We must cut down on this kind of expense. Thank heavens the municipal elections are going to be held on one day in October. That is a very good thing.

I want to appeal to the Government to see to it that everyone can be represented on the city councils and that ethnic management committees and city councils are abolished. The overwhelming majority of our people’s daily needs are going to be provided for on city council or regional services council level. It is obvious that the political tensions in these councils will increase in the short term to the extent that things will become impossible. Before reaching such a situation on the local level, Parliament and the present Government must pass legislation to satisfy people’s aspirations on that level of Government, namely representation on city councils. This will enhance the image of Parliament.

The hon the State President placed advertisements in the newspapers. One advertisement reads as follows, and I quote:

He said a few other things as well. I think they were erroneous statements.

Order! I want to ask the hon member not to quote the hon the State President so repeatedly.

Let me rather say the Government, or those who were responsible for having placed this advertisement, are either misleading the country or there is no hope for us, because the advertisement says that they have abolished outdated laws. That means there are no laws that still need to be abolished. The advertisement says that they have done away with unnecessary controls. That means there are none left. Is that true?

The hon the State President said inter alia in his opening address that the economic situation in South Africa was important in terms of political change. Sir, I want to quote from our leader’s speech which he made during the LP’s annual congress in Pretoria on 28 December 1987. I quote from page 4:

That is exactly what I said in my speech. The election that was held last year, was a waste of money. As the hon member Mr Lockey said, no laws have been changed since that election. If we have interpreted the elections correctly, the electorate of the House of Assembly told them to go ahead with reform. That is where South Africa has come to a halt today.

I saw the hon the Minister blushing slightly because I said things about the hon the State President and the NP Government, but if we cannot mention these things here in these Houses, and if the hon the Ministers cannot accept that it is done in good faith, where are we going to find common ground so that we can share what we have with each other and work for peace in South Africa? This peace must not only satisfy some of us, but all of us.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my shock at the cold-blooded murder this weekend in Johannesburg, of an inspector of education, Mr Alban Noble. I also want to convey my sincere sympathy to his parents and family in Potchefstroom. Mr Noble made his mark in the intellectual and educational spheres in our community.

I also want to make a friendly request to the hon the Minister in asking him to be so kind as to react to many of the political statements which have been voiced here. Only in these budget debates does this House really get the opportunity to vent its feelings. The hon the Minister always defends himself by saying that he only deals with economic affairs, but he is a member of the governing party and serves on the Cabinet where joint decisions are taken. When the CP or the PFP make political statements in the House of Assembly, the hon the Minister does react to them. I attend all the hon the Minister’s debates. When the hon the Minister speaks in Schweizer-Reneke, for example, he will also address the political issues of the country. I therefore address a friendly request to the hon the Minister to react to those issues so that we know where he stands in respect of our problems.

I have the greatest respect for this hon Minister. If one takes a look at the past, at the late John Vorster, one wonders how he became Premier. This was after he had established “law and order” in South Africa, of course. The present State President straightened things out in the military sphere. In that hon Minister I see the man who can put our economy on a sound footing again. [Interjections.] His pragmatism will lead to his becoming our next State President. That is why he must start winning our confidence.

Vote for Barend.

I want to tell my hon colleague for Alra Park that unfortunately I shall not be able to take his argument any further. I am going to adhere to the hon the Chairman’s ruling. I am just afraid that many of us might have lost sight of the major issue for which we came here. We have forgotten who the real enemy is. I am therefore going to limit myself to the hon the State President’s opening address and also refer to the hon the State President’s letter in the weekend newspapers.

The hon the State President made a very important speech at the opening of Parliament. I even want to go so far as to say that the announced economic initiatives should be seen as a watershed towards a new economic era. It is obvious that there will be divergent opinions on this, but I want to state here and now that in due course South Africa will reap the benefits of the announcement.

I should like to react to certain aspects of the hon the State President’s speech, but first I must deal with the letter the hon the State President addressed to fellow South Africans. It appeared in the Sunday newspapers of 14 February 1988. In it the hon the State President says:

The hon member for Alra Park spoke about this, but I do not think anyone will take it amiss if I give my opinion in this regard.

The question arises whether the obsolete and hurtful measures have in fact been removed from the Statute Books. For us as non-White South Africans, nothing less than the total abolition of all the discriminatory measures is acceptable. [Interjections.] Apartheid …

… must go.

…separate development or pluralism, whatever he would like to call it, is still applied in various forms, even in the so-called own affairs departments. We as non-White South Africans are confronted daily by the most grotesque forms of apartheid. That is why I agree with the hon member for Alra Park that what is written in the letter is not quite true. For those of us who are directly affected, it is unacceptable.

In the past 40 years a great number of laws have been piloted through Parliament, practically stripping us of our rights and restricting our development to the extent that there was practically no possibility of progress in the Black community. Without fear of contradiction, I can say that in most cases the laws expressed the will of oppressors which conflicted directly with the rights of the individual.

The hon the State President says in his letter that “We took strong and effective measures against the violence and chaos threatening this country”. I want to make it clear that in the constitution of the Labour Party, we reject all forms of violence and spell out clearly that we are proponents of peaceful negotiation. The entire policy of apartheid was conceived and born in violence, however. As a history teacher, I know that the Afrikaners’ struggle for freedom was etched in blood. Apartheid is not dead at all; it is alive and well. During the December holiday it was apartheid that caused Prof Blanckenberg, a proud Coloured South African presently living in Canada, to be barred from the Umtwalume beach with his White wife. A good advertisement for South Africa! Violence, pressure or any form of obligation as a means of having people obey certain profanities is not only uncivilised, but also undemocratic. We in the LP of South Africa believe that apartheid must go and that it must be replaced by a sociopolitical system which will give every South African, White and Black, a meaningful share in the government of his native land. We in South Africa must purposefully strive for the democratic ideal, based on universal franchise and the creation of a just and stable society in which the rights, dignity and freedom of each individual will be protected. The solution to these important political questions undoubtedly lies in non-violent conduct.

We can prevent oppression and violence without applying any form of oppression or violence. Meaningful change in South Africa will take place only by means of the sustained efforts and steadfast belief of those who are prepared to tackle the struggle for freedom, democracy and human dignity.

I want to state unequivocally that we as nonWhite South Africans need no legal protection, since our history in our native land has clearly spelt out to us that we are the equals of people throughout the world. All that we are asking for is an equal chance in this arduous struggle called life.

Since August 1984, South Africa has experienced the most protracted and widespread Black unrest in its history. Unlike the incidents at Sharpeville and Soweto in 1960 and 1976 respectively, the unrest has spread to the smallest towns. That proves to me the large-scale frustration and anger among the Black component of our population. To a large extent the unrest came about as a result of unemployment during 1983-84. Furthermore the reams of regulations which regulated and controlled Blacks was a major cause. Empty promises such as “apartheid is dead”, or whatever, were also a significant reason. That is why it practically became a philosophy among the Blacks that if one rises in rebellion, change follows. Who can forget what happened in Soweto when Afrikaans was practically forced down the throats of the Black pupils? They firmly believe that their opposition to it brought about change.

But, Sir, I am also big enough to admit that in the seventies the Government did embark upon a reform process in accordance with which various regulations were relaxed or repealed. Involuntarily job reservation and influx control come to mind.

Unfortunately, however, the political reform process has exercised a definite influence on the country’s economy. For some decision-makers in the economy, the reform process took place too quickly; others said it was taking too long. The national economy did, however, weaken at the stage when it had to be very strong in order to accomplish a successful reform process. For that reason it is essential that the reform of the economy should take precedence at this stage. That is why I want to join the hon member for Alra Park in telling the hon the Minister that we support them fully in this.

The hon the State President also wrote in his letter—I quote:

The hon the State President continued:

In his opening address the hon the State President spelt out clearly that public servants should not expect any general increases this year. I am referring to the belts which have to be tightened. [Interjections.] I regret the decision. I want to repeat that. I regret the decision. The teaching body has already sacrificed so much. This very week, the Railway workers reached a dead-end with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs concerning salary matters. There was something I found very striking the other evening when I read a speech by Dr Gerhard de Kock, Governor of the Reserve Bank.

The speech was made on 9 February during a conference in Johannesburg, and I quote:

Surely that shows that the public servants have sacrificed a great deal and that inflation has taken a sizable slice from their salary package. I therefore believe that this year they have a reasonable claim to an increase. You see, Sir, the freezing of salary increases, whether in the public sector or in the private sector, is going to have a definite effect on the country’s economy.

If one can take the city of Pretoria as an example, one realises that approximately 60% of this city’s economically active population is either in the service of the State or of semi-State institutions, and the freezing of salaries will automatically bring about a lowering in the standard of living, and an accompanying negative effect on the economy as a result of the decreased purchasing power. According to the 1980 census in Pretoria, this city’s economically active population was composed of 35% who were in the service of the central Government, 6,7% in the service of the provincial government, 2,7% in the service of the local authorities, 7,7% in the service of either the postal services or the SATS, and 8,7% in the services of public corporations such as Iscor. That comprises a total of 57,4%. That is the percentage of Pretoria’s inhabitants who are directly affected by this. Furthermore, 34,5% of the total economically active population of South Africa is affected by this decision. That means their standard of living is also necessarily lowered, and businesses with which they have concluded transactions over the years are going to suffer because these people’s purchasing power will have received a blow as a result of inflation. Quite simply, this will have a negative effect on our country’s economy.

I realise that the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Finance and his advisers are striving for a policy which wants to eliminate starvation, poverty, desperation and chaos, but in my opinion the main aim of such a policy should also be to bring about an economic revival which would automatically lead to social and political reform. We have a classic example in the American economy, where they used the “New Deal” in order to put their economy back on its feet.

The “New Deal” was introduced in order to restore a badly damaged economy, and was aimed specifically at the creation of labour-intensive employment opportunities. Other American presidents built upon this in later years. Harry Truman had a “fair deal” for example. John Kennedy followed a policy of “new frontier” and his successor, Lyndon Johnson spoke of “the great society”. The most significant characteristic of these respective economic initiatives however, was the conscious striving towards individual freedom and—what I am about to say is important—equality of opportunity.

If we cannot get our national economy to grow at a rate of at least 3% in the long term, South Africa will simply not be capable of meeting the material aspirations of the new entrants to the democratic process.

There is only one way to bring about the redistribution of income and wealth, and that is to give those who have nothing, a fair and just chance to be able to cut a larger slice for themselves from the money cake.

The hon the State President took the initiative with his speech to get the economic reform processes under way. Deregulation is on the agenda and hopefully it will become more firmly established before long; privatisation, according to the hon the State President’s speech, has been accepted as an acknowledged policy and, according to the hon the Minister, it will materialise in a meaningful way in due course.

In my opinion, it is also important that the hon the State President addressed the question of economic growth. He said economic growth was essential, in fact indispensable, if we wanted to provide the facilities and services which each South African desires. In his speech he said—and I quote:

That was pleasing news. The hon the Minister recently announced in the House of Assembly that the growth rate had increased to 2,6% and that our assets exceeded the R8 billion mark. That is encouraging, but economic growth depends in large measure upon higher productivity. The hon member for Western Free State addressed the issue of productivity, and I want to support him. The growth rate will only increase with the increase in resources and their productive utilisation. As far as I am concerned, productivity is nothing but the quotient between returns and inputs. Returns are therefore the sum of productivity and input.

In South Africa, productivity makes a smaller contribution to the growth rate. By contrast, productivity in the national economies of some of our trading partners—involuntarily the East comes to mind—is responsible for as much as 60% of their growth rate. South Africa could also increase its growth rate considerably if purposeful attempts were made to increase productivity.

Productivity can be increased by making more technically orientated training available to everyone. The greatest potential for increased productivity lies in the effective utilisation of our capital reserves. Capital is a scarce commodity in South Africa at present as a result of the withdrawal of investments, scant domestic savings as well as our foreign debt burden.

The Government has taken the lead and I believe it is their duty to take the lead in paying more attention to the manufacturing sector in particular, since it would contribute to a great extent to increasing our growth rate. We must not lose sight of the fact that a high growth rate is a prerequisite for the employment of a larger number of people. One of the main reasons for the inability of the South African economy to create sufficient employment opportunities is its feeble show as far as productivity is concerned. Progress and productivity create definite employment opportunities, but the lack of sustained productivity necessarily leads to unemployment and starvation.

The hon the State President also addressed the question of inflation. Recently, a conference was held on inflation, and I want to wish the hon the Minister and his department every success in their battle against the spectre of inflation. I read Dr Gerhard de Kock’s speech and he put it very succinctly when he said:

Those who are less well off are the ones haunted by the spectre of inflation. That is why I say that I wish the hon the Minister every success in this regard.

In conclusion, the hon the State President also referred to improved education. Last night, I nearly died of embarrassment when the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly simply said—without the question having been put to him—that the teachers’ training college at Paarl would not be given to the Coloureds. [Interjections.] I am not going to expand on that. The reaction in this House was sufficient proof of the general feeling.

We in South Africa must be less conscious of colour in appraising one another. We should rather accept one another as fellow South Africans and share opportunities. Equality of opportunity is the solution for our country. That is why I also say what a great South African such as Nelson Mandela said:

Mr Chairman, I wish to compliment the hon member Mr Douw for having restored sanity in this debate. At times it must have pained the hon the Minister of Finance to have to sit there and listen to the political drivel in this House.

*I want to appeal to all the hon members of this House to put a stop to this kind of blood-sucking politics in which we make personal attacks on one another. The rudeness that …

Order! I just want to draw the hon member’s attention to the fact that I gave a ruling yesterday in this regard yesterday. However, the hon member may proceed.

I am not challenging your ruling, Sir; I am proceeding with my speech. Where those hon members differ with us, we shall give our answers openly in this House. I want to begin by giving an example of what I am trying to say. The hon member Mr Lockey said that the Government had to see to the needs of the people in the area of housing. But what is the truth? I quote from an article that appeared in the Sunday Times last weekend:

The hon member for Schauderville mentioned the seriousness of the housing shortage in every constituency. But what happened? I quote further:

Now I want to know …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: To my mind, the hon member is making use of an opportunity to quote a misleading statement from the newspapers when not one of the Ministers is here to reply.

Sir, it is the Ministers’ duty to be here at all times. If they are not here, it is accepted, in any case, that they are here.

I now want to know why only R3,3 million of the R11,2 million that was granted, was spent. Is it not carelessness on the part of the Ministers’ Council? I come next to housing. The greatest need in our community lies in the area of housing. Money has been granted for it. I quote again:

Mr Chairman, with respect, it is not this House’s doing; it is due to the narrow-minded municipalities that that money was not …

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member for Border may proceed.

I want to tell the hon member for Esselen Park that I will go into this matter further.

We now come to the House of Representatives. They had R71,9 million at their disposal, and how much of that did they spend on housing? R14,3 million. Why was the rest of the money not spent? [Interjections.] We have slums all over South Africa …

Sir, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member Mr Muller to whistle in the House?

Are there any hon members who want to raise any other points of order? I now give them the opportunity to do so.

We shall do as we like!

I continue. A sum of R71,9 million was allocated, but only R14,3 million was spent. Is that not carelessness on the part of hon Ministers in this House? And then they profess to be the champions of the poor people in this country! Millions of rands, however, are being returned to the Government—money which could have been used to alleviate the housing need in the constituencies of hon members. The information is dead. It is written here in official documents.

The information is dead, yes. Now that is something new.

Certain hon members there on the opposite side are making a noise and giggling, but they do say that the truth hurts, do they not.

†An amount of R71,9 million was allocated, but only R14,3 million was spent. The hon member for Esselen Park mentioned that that was as a result of the municipalities at the third-tier level…

Sir, I think the hon member is misquoting me. [Interjections.]

The hon member blamed the municipalities at third-tier level. Now he says I am misquoting him, but what has been done in the past four years since we have been here to address the problem? I will tell hon members what has been done. When the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture for Coloured own affairs was confronted with the facts, what did he say? He said he would ask officials in his administration for an explanation. He does not even know what is going on in this own department. He wants to know from officials what is going on.

*Who is responsible? The hon the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is responsible—not his officials—but no, he now hides behinds his officials! Here I come back to the point raised by the hon member Mr Lockey. The Government must make provision for housing. The Government voted the money, but then the hon members sitting over there wasted it. They squandered it. They must explain to the voters in the country why they allowed R71,9 million to slip through their fingers and only made use of R14,3 million. They must also explain to the voters why, when R11,2 million was granted, only R3,3 million was spent. The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development who is now turning his back, is also responsible for this department. Yes, I want this story to be shouted from the rooftops.

Now you are talking rubbish!

Sir, I know why the hon the Deputy Minister is becoming so excited now. Money was used in Stutterheim …

Sir, on a point of order: Is it permissible to point at other hon members?

I do not react to statements made by hon members who tell lies in this House.

I should like to know if the word “rubbish” (twak) is permissible?

Sir, I shall return to that hon Deputy Minister later.

Sir, on a point of order: The hon member for Border said a moment ago that he did not react to statements made by hon members who told lies. Will he withdraw those words?

Sir, I will be very glad if the hon Whip would ask for a council to be appointed to take note of all the words that I utter. Let a committee be appointed. Then I shall be able to confirm everything I said afterwards.

Order! Would the hon member please withdraw the word “lies”.

Sir, I withdraw it, but I am substituting it with the word “falsehoods”. That hon Deputy Minister’s department distributed food in certain areas where there was famine. Is it true or is it not true? Yes, it is true. [Interjections.] Exactly! There are still thousands of people out there who are still dying of hunger. What is being done with this money that is returned? Absolutely nothing.

The hon the State President must begin firing people. He can begin with the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare whom he appointed. What became of the programme “Give a child a chance”? What became of it? Absolutely no follow-up work was done, and our children now no longer have a chance, because if they were to have had a chance in life, this money would have been spent on housing—the community desperately needs it—and on job opportunities. There are thousands of people in Mitchell’s Plain who do not have jobs, but this money that should have been spent on those people, was not spent. Now they want to reproach the Government and say it is its duty to provide houses. However, when the Government grants money to provide houses, they misuse it. They do not use that money.

Another matter that I want to broach today, is the question of group areas. All hon members in this House kick up a great fuss about group areas. Group areas are discussed every day in this House, and I now want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council or the hon the Minister of Housing to declare all Coloured residential areas open to all. [Interjections.] I want to ask them …

Order! I just want to ask the hon member to explain his statement that these funds are being misused.

Mr Chairman, I say they are being misused because they are not being used. [Interjections.] That is the sense in which I meant it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

It is not the commission; it is the omission. I am addressing the omission, not the commission.

*That brings me to another aspect. A certain Mr Jonathan Msomkhotha of East London now wants to speak to me urgently in connection with a permit to live in a Coloured residential area.

Say “Yes”.

East London has always been open. Hon members can come and see for themselves. [Interjections.] I want it to be done officially. We are loudmouths here. We say: “Group areas must go.” Let us be the first to abolish group areas in our own places. Let us do it. [Interjections.] I shall introduce a private member’s motion to move it officially, and then we shall see who votes against it. There are hon Ministers—I can give their names to those who want to know—who say: “I do not want any Blacks in my area.” That is why we are still saddled with a permit system for Black people. [Interjections.] Why cannot areas be thrown open? We are going to test those hon members. We are going to introduce a private member’s motion and then we shall see who supports apartheid under the blanket and who supports it openly.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Border said R71,9 million was allocated, but that only R14 million was spent. I want to bring to his notice that the municipalities did not make use of the money which was allocated. I had a problem where more than R8 million was allocated to Douglas and the municipality said they had to advertise for tenders, get tenders and get certain people to sign the documents. Moreover, the available land was not actually suitable for building, because there were a lot of rocks etc. Therefore that money has not been returned; it will be used as soon as it can be used.

For too long the poor, the Black, the Brown and the powerless, have been blamed for South Africa’s socioeconomic problems. The fundamental truth is that far from causing the problem, they have been particularly victimised by it. For example, no group has suffered a more devastating assault upon its family structure than the Black and the so-called Coloured people. No other group has suffered greater deprivation of education opportunities. Unless major efforts are made very soon to bring those excluded into the main stream, the condition of a large portion of the Black population will deteriorate beyond the point where any programme of intervention can be effective.

We, the LP of South Africa, believe that the most urgent problems facing the excluded Blacks and Coloureds can be addressed by focusing on three main points: Progress in the economy; the condition of Black and Coloured families; and education opportunities.

These critical areas clearly overlap and none can be dealt with alone. However, they provide a framework for constructing solutions for the real, structural failures in society and not just for the superficial cracks and fears.

If comprehensive action is taken in these areas, not only the Blacks and so-called Coloureds, but the South African society as a whole will benefit. A major barrier to such action is the short-sightedness from which this beautiful country of ours has always suffered, namely its refusal to understand that to exclude Blacks from the main stream is to undermine society at large. This short-sightedness also prevents South Africans from understanding that domestic racial inequities weaken its position in the world—at precisely the time when global forces increasingly influence the internal as well as the external policies of South Africa.

The continuing conflict between South Africa and the ANC and its affiliates with its worldwide implications has led South Africa to allocate to defence budgets a surfeit of resources that might otherwise be available to improve the quality of life for all South Africans.

The worldwide energy crisis and international trade problems reinforce the intimate relationship between domestic and foreign policies. So too do the increasing mobility of capital, the rapid advance in technology and the concomitant loss of jobs and entire industries to overseas markets.

The search of hundreds of thousands of urban Blacks, let alone the refugees from neighbouring states, for havens in South Africa is further evidence of the impossibility of isolation. No material plan of action can succeed that fails to acknowledge the global context within which any reform must take place.

Greater Government intervention and planning are required to revitalise the national economy. However, while the remedies must be both broad and fundamental, it must not be taken for granted that their effects will trickle down to those who were left behind in the past. The apparent present economic upswing may continue without, for example, restoring jobs to all those who have lost them.

Institutional problems such as inadequate schools and municipal services and the deterioration of commercial and residential areas and social dislocations such as joblessness, family deterioration and welfare dependency are at a crisis level.

The rural Black and Brown and poor have always been a significant part of the South African poverty population, but in recent years their situation has been complicated by the increasing mechanisation of agriculture. Sir, what was once malnutrition and accumulated disease, has become virtual starvation.

There are compelling justifications for the Government to help generate conditions that will provide a job at a decent wage level for everyone willing and able to work.

We in the Labour Party of South Africa emphasize full employment at a decent wage level to underscore the importance of providing working families with an income that not only enables them to exist above the mere subsistence level but also to strengthen their work incentives.

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. A great deal has already been said, but I should also like to contribute something.

There are matters which are causing the economy of this country to fail. There is, for example, the Group Areas Act and apartheid. If one considers what apartheid has already done to this country and what it is costing the country, one is as-founded. We see how Whites are closing colleges and schools.

That is what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture said in the House of Assembly. He gave the reasons for this. But we Coloureds do not have enough of these facilities. I am certain that if we shared these facilities they would not have to be closed down. It is a waste of good money to duplicate everything. If we want to strengthen and defend the economy of the country, we must bring the children of the country together. They must defend the country together. If we share the facilities which the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly says must be closed down, the children will get to know one another. We cannot accept the duplication of facilities. The country does not have enough funds for this. Let us share the facilities.

The hon member for Border alleged that our hon Ministers were wasting money. I do not think our hon Minister would sink so low as to waste money which is in such short supply and which the hon the Minister of Finance sitting over there is trying to save. I think some hon members must have their heads read.

We cannot help it if we apply for housing, the throwing open of facilities and the building of roads in our communities, and the municipalities neglect to ask for the money for these purposes. The hon member knows that the municipalities are controlled by Whites who are very conservative. They are the people who still want to ensure that matters concerning my people fail and that developments do not take place.

Today I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to provide more money for housing. I am not going to agree with the hon member on that side that there is no money because it is being wasted. Our community has a great need for housing and education. One’s children are one’s investment. One must use one’s money for the education of one’s children. What would a country be without education or training? Every doctor is born out of education. Every person who can do anything owes this to education. I want to make an appeal for education in this country to be protected. If money is ever available in the country it must be spent on the education of our people.

Mr Chairman, in view of my recent illness I am very grateful to the Lord that I can stand here in this House to address hon members. I have been very sick and I have to be grateful to the Lord once more, for He has given me enough strength to stand here today. It is only through Him that I am able to make my speech, and I hope I will be able to finish.

I am not going to enter into a controversy of any kind. I realise that the Government, like every hon member in this House, has its own problems, but I want to plead the case of the people who have been devastated by the floods in Natal and Zululand. People have lost their limbs, they have lost their dear ones and they have lost their property. Apart from that, roads and bridges, in fact, just about everything, has been lost, and I am now asking the Government to go on looking into the matter thoroughly, to continue monitoring the situation, and, in short, to try to do its best for these people who have been so badly affected.

I was born and bred out there, but I have never seen as much devastation as that which took place there in the course of a few days. I make this appeal to the Government to look thoroughly into the matter and to help all who need help. They should not look at the colour of the people concerned or at anything of that nature. Those people’s houses have gone, their crops have gone, and some of their lives have gone, and only the Government can help in this case.

Of course, I would be failing in my duty if I did not mention the other matter that is great and dear to me, the question of the people out in West Griqualand—the so-called Griqua people. I do not stand here advocating group areas; we have had enough of that evil. I want to talk about this, however, because this land belonged to these people and over the years, somehow or other, it was taken away from them. Be that as it may, we shall not go into the matter.

Through the President’s Council, however, the Government instituted an inquiry into what had to be done about the land of the Griquas. The recommendations of the inquiring body were given very lengthy publicity in a special document that was circulated to everyone here. A clear recommendation was that these people must get their land back.

We shall not go very far back in history, but the last time I brought this matter up was in 1985 when I quoted facts and figures. Those are still in Hansard, and we are waiting on the Government to implement the appropriate measures. I make a special appeal again to the Government to look into this matter. I may say that we here will not see it as the advocating of group areas, but will consider it as a form of reform, as an attempt to remedy a situation that has gone wrong over the years. That is all that this matter is about.

My third point, Mr Chairman, takes me back to Natal, more specifically, to Pietermaritzburg where murders are being committed every day. People from the same racial group are fighting against one another. This destruction of a racial group—in this case brother is even fighting against brother—is, of course, called genocide. I should be very grateful if the Government would look into this situation. They should try to avert the murders. If there is any reason that these people are killing each other, the Government should go into it. They should try to arrest the situation before it goes too far, because in this case we have people from the same racial group fighting each other—Zulus fighting against Zulus. That is no good for the country as a whole. Once again, I make an earnest appeal to the Government to look into this matter.

Mr Chairman, I respect the ruling that was given earlier in the House in connection with personal accusations made against hon members, but because of the untruths which were stated last week during the no-confidence debate and allegations made by hon members of the Official Opposition, I am obliged to point out the truth to them.

The hon member for Border made serious allegations in his previous speech in the House and quoted from newspapers. The fact is that he does not know, or he may have forgotten, why the projects were requested. The amount the hon member now suddenly and propagandistically alleges was sent back unused, is not correct. Those funds which were used, were used for upgrading rural areas in the Cape Peninsula. Approximately 19,5 million was budgeted for and used for Blue Downs alone. How does the hon member arrive at the fact that only R2,5 million was used? That is pathetic. The hon member makes such allegations and attacks on the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, but how many houses have been built in his constituency? Has the hon member told his voters yet why those houses are not being built? It is a fact that often he is conspicuous by his absence, yet I accept that the hon member for Border is a responsible man. For more than two years he was a member of the Labour Party, but he does not address the facts. He does not see how much land is available or how much land is serviced. Nor does he ask himself what the stumbling-blocks are. Is it not so that perhaps the hon member, in his personal capacity, does not do his work as a member of Parliament in his constituency? I should like to ask the voters of the Border constituency why the hon member does not explain to them why those houses have not been built yet.

As far as the Group Areas Act is concerned— regardless of what the newspapers say—I, in my personal capacity, support all applications for permits I receive. Arising from what the newspapers wrote about Blondie and her companion, I can tell hon members, Blondie and her husband are at present residents of Promosa. There are many other applications still coming in and as far as I am concerned, colour is no dividing line.

I also want to talk to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with reference to the untruths which were proclaimed here last week. The hon the Leader said members of the Labour Party support the emergency measures, but surely that is a public lie.

Order! The hon member must please not refer to lies.

I withdraw the words “lies”, but shall then use the word “untruths”.

From where I am standing today, I have put the Labour Party’s case concerning the state of emergency. I stated it clearly and unequivocally, but the hon the Leader and the Deputy Leader of this party were locked up for more than 60 days. My question is this: Have the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or any of those hon leaders ever been near a cell door? Have they ever experienced bitterness? No, never, but our hon Leader who is sitting there, has had to sleep through winters in Modderbee, on a floor without a blanket.

How can the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say that we support the state of emergency? As a result of the LP’s conduct, a state of emergency was declared twice, because the fact of the matter is that the LP did not support the security legislation which was introduced by the former Minister of Law and Order.

I think our standpoint in this regard is clear. I think we have played our part, and I therefore do not believe the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can be allowed to broadcast untruths with the implication that the LP supports the state of emergency. This must definitely be put right.

Furthermore, as far as the state of emergency is concerned, I, as a member of the LP negotiated for the release of our Anglican Bishop. I held negotiations for the release of more than 10 clergymen in Potchefstroom. Is that mentioned? No, because I did not announce it with a fanfare.

I think last week the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had a political miscarriage with that speech. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “miscarriage”.

Sir, if I may not refer to a political miscarriage, I withdraw it, and say that these days they are suffering from political bankruptcy. There was nothing constructive in the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, which lasted two and a half hours; on the contrary, it caused the political character which I had always discerned in the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, to crumble. They cannot lay claim to any basis upon which they have built or which they can look back upon.

Yesterday the Part Appropriation was tabled by the hon the Minister of Finance. I should like to make my contribution to this debate as well. More than R1,5 billion was allocated to the Transvaal from the State Revenue Fund in the Part Appropriation for the financial year ending 31 March. I understand that. Firstly, I want to say something about the drastic increases in hospital services in the Transvaal. The poor people were confronted with increases of more than 100% in hospital services. Thousands of people were shocked about the tremendous increases which were suddenly introduced. This continues to be a stumbling-block for all the Transvalers, and if one takes the real problems of the provincial hospitals into consideration, it is cause for concern. One often asks oneself why the unnecessary duplication of services is necessary. Is it not a contributory factor to the high tariffs which the poor people have to pay? White hospitals are empty, while the hospitals for our people are overcrowded. The patients even have to lie on the floor. When one is ill, one asks oneself whether this situation is not the result of apartheid. Are the poor conditions in the hospitals not attributable to the major losses which the hospitals are suffering? I think we should take a look at how things are developing in South Africa these days. We must not view this from a perspective of fear, prejudice or sectional interests, but rather from a perspective of trust and acceptance of each other as partners in the search for peace in South Africa. It is important that we develop the economic facets on all levels. South Africa cannot contemplate reform before economic and social reform has taken place.

The individual interests of each inhabitant of our country will make a contribution to this drastic step. The hon the State President based his opening address primarily on these cardinal points. He concentrated on economic reform. Reform must not extend only to the interests of White domination, but must be such that it will lead to the stabilisation of our country’s political situation.

The country’s economy must be liberated, so that people will be able to have a common interest in the activities of the country’s development. Economic progress is an important factor in our country’s growth. Economic progress not only stimulates confidence, but also brings about renewed loyalty among the country’s inhabitants. It is of vital importance because conflict, in my opinion, can only be avoided if there is a common value system which can draw the respective communities together.

I should also like to talk about Bophuthatswana. My constituency borders on Bophuthatswana. A large part of my constituency is practically inside Bophuthatswana. Because I have voters there, I took a trip there last weekend. I was distressed to read what had caused that terrible “wildcat” coup d’état that took place there last week.

I want to make a serious appeal to the Government not to consider the further establishment of Black homelands. We do not gain anything by solving problems here, while other problems are brewing. If problems start emerging, they mushroom overnight—as was the case last week.

The only solution for Bophuthatswana and all the other homelands—as the LP has stated clearly on many occasions—is for them to relinquish their homeland status in order to be included in the geographic, federal, non-racist system which is proposed by the LP. That is the only solution, because there are going to be many Metsings. There are going to be many Mangopes and Sebes. The problems cannot be solved, however, unless we do something about them.

The inhabitants of the homelands—and that is a fact—were inhabitants of South Africa. They were South African citizens, so to speak. As a result of their homeland status they suddenly became citizens of Bophuthatswana, Ciskei or Venda. That aggravates the problem. We are depriving the people of what they already had. I think it is high time we gave back to them what we owe them. The only way in which we can do this is to replan the entire system and go back to the consensus table so that we can iron out these problems.

I want to conclude by making an earnest appeal to hon members of the Official Opposition. These hon members have sat here all making a noise all afternoon, Sir, but just see how conspicuous they are in their absence now. Again they are not present. Only the hon the Chief Whip and the hon member for Macassar are here. Surely they cannot go on in this way. This is an important debate. It is one of the most important debates in Parliament and hon members must come and state their voters’ case here. But no, all of a sudden they are running for protection after the ruling given by Mr Speaker. Suddenly it has occurred to them that they are being attacked.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition forgets, however, that in his previous speech he called our Leader an Idi Amin. In the back of my mind I remember that there are people, especially in the Free State, who also have another name for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I prefer not to mention it, because hon members are already laughing, but in the Free State he is known as the Ayatolla. [Interjections.] I withdraw that unconditionally, Mr Speaker, but that is how it is. Unfortunately he is not here now to state his case or to defend himself.

Mr Chairman, before I respond to speeches made by hon members, I would like to make reference to an issue which is of very grave concern to us and of which we have for some time been aware. Currently there are various schemes whereby investments are made in films, exports and racehorses—a loophole we have already plugged—on a large scale to avoid the payment of tax. I would like to stress that we have been aware of these schemes for some time. We are examining these schemes very carefully, and I want to issue a word of caution to people who are involved in this or are contemplating it. I want to tell them, in addressing a word of caution to them, that having examined these schemes, we will counter them with every possible means at our disposal. I want to say that it is not even necessary at this stage to contemplate retroactive legislation, because the results of our examination have shown that we can counter almost all of these schemes with the existing legislation. Although, at this moment, we are very busy studying the Margo Commissions proposals—in fact, the task group is completing its response in order to submit it to the Cabinet—these other issues which require our urgent attention will have to receive preference now.

I should like to ask all tax practitioners to heed this word of caution which I used this opportunity to get across to them. The simple fact is that when one devises clever schemes in order to avoid tax one should have paid, one deprives the fiscus of revenue which will just have to be sought elsewhere. That means more tax for other people who are not in a position to contrive that kind of scheme.

*I want most sincerely to thank hon members who expressed appreciation, understanding and support for the economic reform plan announced last Friday by the hon the State President. I also want to thank hon members who made a positive contribution. We took very thorough cognisance of their positive contributions and it is only with this positive attitude that one can implement such a plan. We are not a country which can be ruled totally by means of legislation; as a matter of fact, we are in the process of moving away from a phase in which people expected us to achieve everything in this country by means of legislation. For that reason deregulation is a definite part of our reform programme and this applies not only in the economic sphere, but also in other spheres of life. How many times in my life have I not heard people stand up and make an appeal for the preservation of language, for example, and then ask that we draft legislation to prevent or promote this particular matter. We are in the process of moving away from that era.

I want to deal with the comments of hon members one after the other and although I do not have that much time I shall nevertheless try to do justice to each hon member.

The hon member for Schauderville and some of his colleagues as well as hon members of the LP apologised for being unable to be here. Some of the hon members have to address meetings elsewhere in the country. [Interjections.] The hon member for Schauderville referred to the tremendous increase in the population which South Africa will experience up to the year 2000. My hon colleague, the Deputy Minister of Population Development, will certainly be able to say a great deal more about this matter because it is his direct responsibility. The simple truth is that if one considers the demands which the growth in population in this country is going to make on the economy, one fears for the future. It is like a piece of string of a certain length. If one knocks a nail into the wall and makes a rectangle with that string one sees that the more people one has to care for, the less remains of the upright section of that rectangle which indicates the improvement in the standard of living. If we can get a proper population development programme started throughout South Africa, we can raise that piece of string in order to do something about the millions of people in South Africa who also yearn for an improvement in their standard of living. However, the economic capability of this country is like a piece of string. It is a finite thing. There is only a certain amount and no more. One cannot manufacture it and that is why we must try in every possible way to get a sound population development programme started in South Africa. The economic capability of this country is insufficient to make provision for an unchecked increase in the number of members per family plus the increase in the standard of living and the services involved. The hon member made a very important point in this regard and I am sure everyone in this House will agree with it.

†The hon member also referred to surpluses in the White teaching community. Let me make one point very clear. As far as I am concerned I am not aware of anything whatsoever precluding a trained teacher from joining any education department where there are vacancies.

*That is, after all, a fact. There is nothing preventing that teacher from teaching anywhere. If he has the qualifications he can apply for a post and go and teach there. [Interjections.] I am talking about the surpluses, those people who are supposed to be wandering about. The hon member said there were vacancies in the education department administered by my hon colleague in this House and there were surpluses in the department administered by my colleague in the House of Assembly. I merely want to make the point that there is nothing preventing them from working in this department.

When I had the privilege of handling Black education and training I was aware of quite a number of White teachers who were making a very valuable contribution in Black schools. I think it is important for us to look into this. We cannot force people. No authority can force a person to go and work in a place if he does not choose to work there himself. We are not that kind of country.

The hon member argued that we should utilise the revenue from privatisation judiciously. I agree with him. I think the hon the State President brought that point home to us very thoroughly in his opening address.

The hon nominated member Mr Lockey apologised for being unable to be here. However, I see he is here and I am glad if he has changed his plans. He congratulated us on a courageous step. This is indeed true. No government that has the opportunity to take a popular step, prefers to take an unpopular one. It will not take such steps unless it has considered the matter, investigated all the possibilities and taken a decision to undertake certain steps for the sake of long-term benefits.

However, in this regard I want to disagree with the hon nominated member Mr Douw and want to convey this perspective to him. Neither the hon the State President nor I nor any of my colleagues were happy or satisfied to say that there could not be general salary increases this year. It gave us no pleasure. We would very much have liked to make far more available than the R215 million for specific occupational adjustments, and the almost 1,8% increase which will take place when approximately half of the people who have not yet reached their maximum salary scales receive increases. The hon the State President expressly said—and this is the point; I think the hon member understands this but simply did not say so and I would like this placed on record— that it would not be possible to give a general increase, except for the increases being given, without tax implications. This is the key to the entire matter. If one has a choice at this delicate stage of the economic upswing between increasing tax or saying that there are not going to be any general salary increases, and one is a responsible Government which does not have any eye on the forthcoming by-elections, but is looking a little further ahead, one must choose the more difficult of the two options, namely saying that there will not be salary increases.

If one were to say that tax increases should be introduced in order to be able to grant salary increases, one cannot consider tax increases at this stage. It would kill the economy. If I may phrase my earlier words correctly: If one’s choice therefore lies between tax increases accompanied by salary increases, and no tax increases to pay for salary increases, accompanied by no general increase, the responsible course is the latter. I want to make the point that if it is after all possible by means of this particular effort to bring about a considerable reduction in the inflation rate, the rand will be worth more. If by taking this step one succeeds in avoiding a tax increase, one is going to have more money left in one’s pocket after one has paid tax. If there had been a tax increase, everyone paying income tax in the country would have had less money left in their pockets. This is true. This is a delicate stage in our economy. We elected to adopt the more difficult course.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know whether the hon the Minister agrees with the President of the Reserve Bank that in real terms the salary package of the civil servant is at present 11% lower than in 1984?

Sir, I have no problem in agreeing with that, because if that is what one deduces from the calculations and it is correct, I accept it. However, that is not what is at issue and that is the point I am making. I maintain that the Government did not say what the salary position of the teacher, the state attorney or whatever sector of the staff of the Public Service was. The Government asked what the implications of a general increase would be. The implication would be a tax increase and the main argument was that we wanted to avoid a tax increase. Obviously across the entire spectrum of workers in South Africa there are sectors in which workers are worse off today in real terms than they were a few years ago. It is a well-known fact that average salaries and wages have not kept pace with inflation; that in real terms they have actually diminished. However, the simple truth is that the course of events is such that if we wanted to grant a general increase at this stage, in the forthcoming financial year, we would simply have had to increase taxation. Then one finds oneself trapped in a vicious circle of taxes being increased in order to grant salary increases and because of tax increases and other cost increases, prices increase. In this way one finds oneself trapped in a vicious circle. Of what use is it if one gets a higher salary, but one must pay more tax and also pay more at the counter.

We must break that spiral somewhere and that is my point. One fights inflation not only with figures and computers, but also with a psychological approach, with a perception which exists among people that they no longer care about price increases because they are, after all, getting a salary increase to compensate for it. If we do not break that cycle of expectations, if we do not break inflation expectations—and this is a familiar phenomenon throughout the world—we will never win the fight against inflation, and manage to break the inflation spiral. That is what is at issue—and as I said earlier—we cannot achieve this by means of legislation. We cannot draft legislation with one formula for everyone—a bricklayer, a mason, a cabinet-maker, a laboratory technician, a doctor, a teacher, a scientist and a worker, an artisan—which determines the maximum for everyone, inside and outside the public service. In principle we did not even want to consider this, apart from the fact that it could not work. If the Government were to say that it wanted to draft legislation laying down that a salary increase of not more than X% would apply in South Africa this year, this would mean that every employer could tell his people that if they wanted more they would have to go and talk to the Government. Then we would be destroying the excellent progress in the negotiation process between employers and employees which we have achieved in South Africa since the Wiehahn Report. There is so much at stake and I want to assure hon members that a great deal of thought went into this matter.

I want to get back to the hon member Mr Lockey, but before I do that I want to say something to the hon member Mr Douw. If in my reply in this House I concentrate on economic and financial matters—and financial matters in particular—I am not avoiding politics. I am glad the hon member said that I was talking politics over there in the House of Assembly when I quarrelled with the CP. What is the truth? Today I constantly heard that I found myself fully in the ranks of the opposition. Over there some of my colleagues on the NP side help me throughout the entire debate to reply to the financial matters properly. I need not repeat this. Frequently in the House of Assembly when I reply at the end of the debate my financially orientated colleagues have replied to virtually all the questions. Then I have a great deal of time to talk politics. If I neglect to reply properly to questions on financial and economic matters here, who is going to do so? Hon members can invite me one day and I will come and talk politics. There is one political debate which is going to take place here which I want to attend in any case, and that is when the private member’s motion of the hon member for Border concerning the Group Areas Act is discussed. They can try to chain me up elsewhere, but I will definitely be here on that day. I want to hear whether what is said today is contradicted tomorrow. It is going to be a very interesting debate. I do not mind talking politics here, but then people on this side of the House must at least occasionally help me to reply properly to the financial matters, because as I have said, I am all on my own here against all the hon members. Sir, it is not easy.

The hon member Mr Lockey made a very valid point. He said that the State had a responsibility towards the lower income groups. This is right on target. The hon the State President expressly said this when he said that compassionate services would always receive high priority.

The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal and other hon members spoke about hospitals and so on. I should like to emphasise that our economy in South Africa is undergoing a radical reform process. We are moving in the direction where people who can afford it, must to an increasing extent pay for the services which the State provides for them. As regards the increased hospital tariffs, to which hon members referred as a shock, I telephoned from Kareedouw to Pretoria on Old Year’s eve, to ask whether it was true, with reference to the impression which was being created, that medicines in provincial hospitals in the Transvaal were so extremely expensive. The relevant senior official told me that it was not true, because they were very much more expensive in private hospitals.

We are dealing here with a process—I am appealing to hon members to understand this—in terms of which the system should no longer help. I am referring to the tax system, the fees, tariffs and subsidy system. They must no longer work as systems to lighten the burden. We must identify the needs and address them. The Margo Commission also found that one should not try to use a tax system to achieve specific social welfare objectives. This is too clumsy. People enjoy benefits which they should never have enjoyed. Sir, give me one good reason why a hotel or an expensive restaurant should get subsidised bread. It is ridiculous. I am now referring only to the principle; I am not saying it is easy to solve the problem. However, one must approach it from the angle that one should rather identify the needy individual and help him. In that respect the hon member Mr Lockey was correct and I take pleasure in supporting him.

By the way, the hon member Mr Lockey really boasted about the achievements of the Ministers’ Council. I have heard a great deal about how bad this tricameral system is. However, I am glad the hon member broke a lance today for this Ministers’ Council, which has rendered praiseworthy service within the system to the community served by this Ministers’ Council and House. I wrote down what the hon member said in the very next sentence—and how many times did he not repeat it in his speech—“We have not yet achieved the ideal, but there are perceptible improvements.” I should like to add “remarkable” to this. Sir, this is the direction in which South Africa must go. Who said we had arrived in any case?

Other hon members spoke about per capita expenditure in respect of Black children. Relatively speaking this has shot up in recent years.

I do not know where the money is going to come from once we have actually achieved per capita parity. I do not know if we will then be able to give our children all the benefits we give them now free of charge. We must remember this. That is the advantage of this parliamentary debate. Even though hon members consider it inadequate, it is still a debate. I listen to it and it helps me to do my work better.

When hon members of the Ministers’ Council and the Cabinet defend their votes here, we listen to them, and that helps us to do our work. However, I do not know how we are going to manage in future to do all these things and reduce taxes. Hon members know that there is only one way in which taxes can be reduced and that is to reduce Government expenditure. After all, one cannot eat one’s cake and have it.

Per capita expenditure on Black children is far from ideal, but it is progressing rapidly, and there is built-in momentum. I want to compliment the hon member, because he is the first and only person I know of who does not agree with the Government, but put that perspective in words in public. I thank him for that. He made the point that the education qualification profile had an important cost input. As qualifications improve per capita expenditure is automatically carried along with it.

There are also other factors involved here. There are many children in primary schools, where it costs half as much to keep a child at school as it does to keep a child at high school.

However, we are making progress, and the hon member was on target when he said that we had not yet achieved the ideal. We are, however, making perceptible progress. It will still take us years before we can achieve our ideal, because South Africa is not an easy country to live in. I did not intend to give the hon member the “kiss of death”. [Interjections.] He said enough other things—now and in the past—that I did not like, but I shall not pursue this matter now. I think we must be constructive instead.

I want to comment only on two thirds of the speech by the hon member for Western Free State. Towards the end of his speech he ruined everything. When he started talking about Government expenditure that was getting out of hand, I no longer agreed with him. Up to that point the hon member made a very valuable contribution to the debate, however. Today he reprimanded John Citizen about productivity. I support him as regards the fact that in due course there must be a decent campaign. A year or two ago a great deal of emphasis was placed on productivity, but I think this matter must be emphasised again as part of our anti-inflation package. I shall also bear the hon member’s hints in mind.

The hon member told John Citizen that he would have to increase his productivity. I think the hon member Mr Douw also spoke about a 60% addition. It is an essential truth that the South African economy falls short in comparison with the Eastern countries to which he referred, where there is such a phenomenal work ethic. He was right on target with the analysis he made. It is true that we fall short and that is part of our inflation problem. People must simply accept this.

This is, however, a structural problem which will only disappear in time. The hon member also told John Citizen that he would have to save—not only by means of policies, but also at banks. The implication is that in the handling of the facilities which the various financial institutions offer us, we must aim for neutrality. In other words, there must not be a category of financial institutions which gets all the money owing to the tax benefits which they offer, while others do not get it. Then the economy becomes distorted.

The hon member said that John Citizen had to have confidence in himself. He can gain selfconfidence if he saves, and then he will also have confidence in the economy. He said South Africa had to increase its exports. Do hon members know how we are battling with the planning of our balance of payments? We have been battling with it since the time we spoke about the debt standstill. At present this is one of the weak points in the South African economy. We must maintain our balance of payments and current account, because the capital account is not getting anything from outside. These are very true words. We must promote industrial growth.

This brings me to a very important point. Unfortunately economic growth in South Africa is no longer equal to employment opportunities as it was in the past. We must also try in various ways to have economic growth of such a nature that employment opportunities can be created. One can bring about economic growth by importing machines and mechanising everything, but then one is not creating the employment opportunities one should actually be creating.

The hon member said several things about pensions. I do not actually want to go into this in detail, because I have already referred to certain of the other matters he raised. We can follow this up later. As regards pensions I merely want to tell him that we are moving towards bringing about transferability. The committee will be announced soon, because in future we shall have to talk in all three Houses of Parliament with the greatest responsibility about caring for people who cannot care for themselves. However, we shall also have to encourage people increasingly to make provision for their old age, otherwise we—or our successors—are going to tax our children into the ground and kill our economy.

The hon member for Northern Cape spoke about small rural towns which have to make do with inadequate facilities. It is also necessary for us to give attention in our entire budget of capital expenditure, resulting from our privatisation strategies, to the needs of the small rural towns. He asked whether the Government wanted to force partition on the Coloureds, but I am afraid that is CP policy; it is definitely not NP policy. The CP said they were going to negotiate to get people to leave the system, but the NP is negotiating to involve people in the system. Hon members can therefore clearly see what the difference between our respective parties is.

I want to ask the hon member to put the case of the Coloured farmers in the designated areas to his relevant Minister in the Ministers’ Council, so that he can speed up the matter. There is negotiation under way. I received a note from my hon colleague who is involved with agriculture, and apparently negotiations are under way. I want to ask the hon member to promote that matter, because there is a differentiation at the moment and this should not actually be the case.

An hon member put a question to me here. He asked why West Germany, Japan and, to a certain extent, England were so economically prosperous today—implying that we were not. In the first place they do not have the population growth we do. Secondly, they do not have the demands for development that we do. Thirdly, Germany and Japan are both countries living below their means. This is interesting, and this is in fact America’s problem with them. America says they must live according to their means, because to the extent to which America is living beyond its means, Germany and Japan are making money out of it. Those countries have a tremendous work ethic. The average training level in those countries is extremely high. They are extremely sophisticated countries. I think these are the basic reasons.

I want to quarrel with the hon member for Alra Park. Unfortunately he is not here now, but I want this placed on record. I am not prepared to accept the hon member’s implication. He implied that the hon the State President was seeking confrontation, directly or by default. I merely want it placed on record that I am not prepared to accept this. That is not the hon State President I know. If he ever experienced confrontation in his life, which hurt him a great deal, it was the confrontation from his own people when he established this tricameral Parliament to place our people on the road to the broadening of the democracy. That is the confrontation he got, but which he was not looking for. In this respect he was left in the lurch. Other than that I do not know him as a person who seeks confrontation.

The hon member spoke about certain Acts which should be repealed. I want to make only one political statement, and leave it at that. We shall follow this up later, because time is running out. I have made this statement here before. This country is a country of minorities requiring protection.

I am not saying this because one of our NP policy-makers thought of this in his study. I have direct experience of the fact that, man to man, minority groups are prepared to tell one that a solution in this country is not possible unless the minorities of this country can be protected effectively.

Now I want to ask, Sir: How is effective protection possible if it does not have the force of law? If one is threatened or feels threatened and one cannot rely on the law of the land to help one, there is no question of protection. If there is to be a suggestion of protection, therefore, one must be able to appeal to the laws of the land. What is more, how is protection possible if there is not also by implication a definition? Even if we go full circle and we have an intensive debate for seven or eight hours, and even if we admit that something is true, it is frequently the case that what we bring with us from the past prevents us from arriving at a better future. That is all I want to say about that.

I think we should debate that on another occasion, because we differ with you on that.

Yes, I think we should too, but let us agree to differ; and let us differ as gentlemen and on the facts. [Interjections.] It would be a great pleasure.

*Sir, I want to make a second point in the hon member’s absence. He said the advertisement was wrong. In that regard he associated himself with what the hon member Mr Douw said. Sir, this advertisement was not intended to say that we had completed the other reform processes. Certainly not! The hon member for Alra Park expressly said the advertisement was wrong.

He spoke about out-dated laws and he quoted everything and he said that I was getting red in the face. [Interjections.] Of course I become upset when something is attributed to the hon the State President—and of course also to the Government—when this was really not what we meant. We did not mean that we had finished with hurtful or out-dated laws, or other control measures which were in our way. Certainly not! Who can ever say that reform is a thing of the past? Every day is a moving tableau …

But the pace must increase.

We can talk about the pace, but there is also a time to do certain things and leave other things for later. As regards constitutional reform, I merely want to say the following to hon members in this House. There is also a time when things must be in focus and a time when one must…

Take a bit of a breather.

… leave matters as they are for a while and talk things over. I want to tell hon members that they would do well to remember this image. They must not think that if the cricket score—the hon member for Toekomsrus will understand what I am saying now—is not given every 15 minutes, the game is over. That game is continuing. The less that is revealed about the reform process and discussed in public at this delicate stage, the better it is for the process.

The hon member also said—I want to finish talking to him now—that last year’s election was a waste of money. One day he must tell me what kind of election is a good investment. Sir, democracy costs money! If one adopts a fundamental standpoint that an election is a waste of money, whenever it takes place, one must not participate in a democratic system. No, Sir, that was really not a very good argument.

With all due respect I want to disagree with the hon member Mr Douw as regards his standpoint. According to what I have paraphrased, what his argument amounts to is that one can experience violence without implementing it. With all due respect and in a friendly manner I want to disagree with the hon member.

I am afraid that this was not and still is not possible. We are not living in a community in which pure Roman-Dutch law or the pure principles of democracy are accepted, applied or understood. There were political systems in this subcontinent. A few generations ago those political systems reigned supreme here. They were not democratic political systems. There was also a different legal system; a different education system and a different social structure. I am referring to the Black people. I was filled with the greatest respect and admiration when I read in books about Shaka Zulu about the unbelievable administration, discipline and government which he established.

But, Sir, today this kind of system is completely different. I do not want to sound paternalistic or be an apologist for other people. However, I can imagine what an enormous adjustment it must be for one to realise that everything has changed, such as one’s legal system and one’s education system. Today one must learn mathematics, geography and history—another kind of history. One must study nuclear physics and chemistry to gain an education. Things are no longer as they were two or three generations ago.

The legal system is Roman-Dutch law which came from elsewhere. It is no longer the legal system which applied a generation or two ago.

In the same way I want to say with all due respect, and apart from those cultural differences which still exist between us, that there are elements which exploit this, enlarge it and transfer it to other violent uprisings and feelings which have caused us many problems. For that reason, with all due respect, I cannot agree with the hon member. I want to qualify this and say that obviously as a government, in the application and the restoration of law and order, one must restrict violent behaviour of whatever nature to an absolute minimum. In the application of this there is after all total unanimity in the ranks of the Government and its security services.

The hon member made a valid point by saying that people in South Africa are asking for an equal opportunity. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Part of the compunction we are experiencing in South Africa today is to create those opportunities. We must tighten our belts. It is however not only the civil servant and the teacher who must tighten their belts; those people who are going to pay more for services are in a way tightening their belts. An appeal has been made to the private sector to tighten their belts as regards salaries and wages. The hon the State President asked companies to tighten their belts in terms of profit, and prices must not simply be increased. [Interjections.]

The hon member spoke about a 3% growth rate. That is the minimum he was referring to. If it is our intention to make up the backlog, we must grow at a rate of 5%. It is in this regard that privatisation can play an extremely important role by mobilising capital and undertaking the capital works which are so essential and which we can no longer extract from the taxpayer or the companies.

†I now come to the hon member for Griqualand West. I want to tell him that I do not believe our Defence Vote is excessive compared to that of countries which have the same structure as South Africa. The hon member also emphasises full employment. That is a wonderful ideal, but unless we can reach a stage where our population growth rate can decrease to a level that we can handle in our economy, full employment will be a very difficult goal to achieve.

*With all due respect I want to tell the hon member for Heidedal that we can advance fine arguments regarding the sharing of facilities. But that facility is not always situated where one can simply apply this policy without any further disruption. I want to mention a second point.

I want to take my own constituency as an example. In our communities we no longer have a problem to provide facilities for our children; our problem is to provide facilities for our aged. I have an idea that some of our primary schools which are standing empty can be converted into centres for the aged, particularly the frail aged. I can see this coming, because the structures exist. In other words, that reality already exists within each community. We can argue whether it is right or wrong for us to live in separate communities, but that is the reality, and while the reality exists, I must take care of my constituency and hon members must take care of their constituencies. These are the realities that we must deal with. In my constituency primary schools are no longer a problem, but it is a problem to care for all the aged properly. The throwing open of facilities and so on is not a matter which we can simply say can be handled in that way. I have no argument with the basic principle that, where facilities are standing empty and not being used in that community, one must definitely investigate whether they cannot be utilised in a specific way.

†Sir, I want to conclude by telling the hon member for Natal Interior that we share his gratitude for his recovery. We have already spent sizeable amounts of money on the Natal floods and the Government has certainly gone out of its way to alleviate the plight of those devastated. In the next Budget we will determine the maximum amount that we can afford to handle the situation.

*With all due respect I want to remind the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal that the citizens of Bophuthatswana initially lost their RSA citizenship, and had Bophuthatswana citizenship only. If I remember correctly the hon member was part of the legislative process to create the legislation through which they would get their citizenship back. [Interjections.]

Sir, on a point of order: I merely want to say that I was never part of that process. [Interjections.]

I think the hon member and I must reach an agreement. Let us see what happens when that amending Bill has been passed which will afford citizens of the TBVC countries the opportunity to regain their RSA citizenship, and then in the next debate we can see which of the two of us was right. I am sure the matter was also debated in this House, but we can discuss this later. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I again want to thank hon members, not only for their support for the measure, but also for the atmosphere in which we could have this debate. The House also has its “ups and downs” as we have over there on the political level. I want to thank hon members in particular for their support and the appreciation they expressed for the economic package of the hon the State President.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the absolute parity in salaries which was announced for 1 March of this year is still a foregone conclusion, or whether it is going to be postponed owing to the economic climate in which we find ourselves.

To which parity is the hon member referring?

I am referring to parity in the salaries mainly of public servants.

Sir, last year a very large amount was spent to bring about parity, and I am really not in a position to say whether this has all been achieved. An amount of R215 million was earmarked for occupational specific dispensation and I do not know whether the commission is going to use some of this to achieve parity. I really cannot reply to the question. I think the hon member must place his question on the Order Paper so that I can reply to it thoroughly.

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

Order! No, I do not think the hon the Minister is going to reply to any further questions.

Sir, everybody else in this House has had an opportunity to ask a question.

If the hon the Minister does not want me to ask a question, he must tell me …

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to take another question?

Yes, of course.

No, Mr Chairman. I am not going to put the question. I do not think it is necessary. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

In moving this particular amendment, I should like to appeal to hon members …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like a ruling from you, Sir, as to whether an amendment of that nature is acceptable because it goes beyond the scope of the original motion as printed on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Stanger must please immediately submit a copy of that amendment to the deputy Secretary.

Yes, Mr Chairman. May I be permitted to continue?

Order! The hon member may continue.

I should like to advise my hon colleague on the opposite side of the House that in a sense, we have nothing against what is being proposed, but that we should like the scope of it to be extended so that all the various irregularities that were allegedly committed by hon members of this House may also be investigated. Submissions have been made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself in various debates in this House over the past few years in which, making use of Parliamentary privilege, he has in fact cast aspersions on the integrity and honour of hon members of this House, and having done so, I think …

Order! On going through the amendment submitted by the hon member for Stanger I find that it seeks to extend the scope of the motion and therefore I cannot allow the amendment. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I request your ruling as to whether all the words uttered by the hon member for Stanger are to remain on record or whether they will be expunged from it.

Order! They will remain on record. [Interjections.] Order! By virtue of the fact that I have disallowed this amendment, I cannot allow further debate on this matter. If the hon member for Stanger wishes to refer to the motion submitted by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as it appears on the Order Paper, he may do so, but he may not, and cannot, refer to the amendment he himself submitted.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for your ruling and I shall abide by it. However, I should like to submit that it would have been preferable, when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council moved this motion, for us to have ensured that such a motion would restore integrity and dignity in-so-far as …

Order! I must tell the hon member for Stanger that that motion was read out yesterday. He has had sufficient time in which to study that motion. However, to talk about the integrity and the dignity …

Of the House.

Order! I must ask the hon member to withdraw that. I do not think this motion refers to the integrity and the dignity of this House.

With respect, Mr Chairman, I was not casting aspersions on the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and neither was I casting aspersions on any individual. I was merely suggesting, that if the motion had dealt with this irregularity and had a wider scope, it would in fact have helped this particular House.

Order! In trying to clarify his statement, the hon member for Stanger is now making certain other statements which the Chair cannot accept. I therefore ask the hon member to withdraw his last statement implying that this motion, as submitted, has something to do with the integrity and dignity of the House.

If you so rule, Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! That is my ruling.

I withdraw it.

Order! Thank you. Would the hon member for Stanger like to continue with the debate on this particular motion?

Mr Chairman, with respect, I submit that we will consider putting forward a motion which will cover the amendment which we envisaged in the first instance.

Question agreed to.

That in terms of Rule 40 the proceedings on the Immorality Amendment Bill [B 104A and B—87 (GA)] be resumed from the stage reached during the preceding session.

Agreed to.

That the Select Committee appointed in 1987 to form part of the Joint Committee on the Constitution, be reappointed with the same terms of reference.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, before we begin with the Third Reading debate, I want to express my condolence with regard to the four members of the South African Defence Force who were killed in action in South-East Angola, which was announced this afternoon. On behalf of everyone on this side I want to express our deepest sympathy with the families of the deceased soldiers.

Mr Chairman, in supporting the Third Reading I will be very brief this afternoon, just as the hon the Minister was yesterday. However, this particular debate gives us a platform to voice various issues and I want to touch on what was said yesterday.

In his reply yesterday the hon the Minister spoke about the Group Areas Act and the impediments this places on economic activities. I think I was misunderstood. I did not ask for the repeal of the Group Areas Act at that stage, although I have said, and I want to repeat, that we on this side of the House are completely for the repeal of the Group Areas Act. However, as it stands now, I feel that the Group Areas Act is retarding economic progress as far as the opening of businesses in business areas—not only in the CBDs —are concerned.

A very typical example is the refusal of a permit to a member of the White group to allow the training of prospective hairdressers in a building in Beatrix Street in Pretoria. He was told that because of accommodating various different races in that building, he should apply for a permit. This was only for training. When he applied for this permit it was refused. Is this not a blatant way of retarding progress in the economic field? This was the question which I raised with the hon the Minister yesterday. I feel that the Department of Manpower has training programmes for the various racial groups in and around the city which are mixed, yet this particular White entrepreneur was told to apply for a permit because he wants to train Indian, Coloured and Black hairdressers. Furthermore, this permit was turned down. That is why all economic progress in this country is linked with the impediments of the Group Areas Act as far as businesses are concerned.

It is also on record that the Governor of the Reserve Bank spelt out over the weekend that the sanctions imposed so far have not hit South Africa very hard. I appeal to hon members of the Government, bankers, financiers and also to the public that we should be very cautious because any such statement reflecting optimism will harm us. Just after the Governor of the Reserve Bank made the statement that disinvestment and sanctions have not harmed us yet, the Prime Minister of Canada said that they are going to step up sanctions against South Africa. I feel that there should be an ongoing educational programme in South Africa to educate the general public as well as members of the public sector that irrational and irresponsible statements of this nature can harm the economy of South Africa.

I want to come back to the growth rate. It was said yesterday and repeated today that we have achieved a growth rate of 2,6% in 1987. However, the growth rate of 2,6% does not solve our problems. As the hon the Minister also mentioned yesterday we need a growth rate of 5% or higher. What are we doing to achieve such a growth rate? We have to address ourselves to the problems that are fast arising as a result of the very small growth rate that we have in this country. We are talking of a growth rate of possibly 3% or 4% in the coming year, but to achieve that will be a very great task for the economists in the country.

My appeal is therefore that we should do it with caution. We should look at the question of political reform in this country which is more necessary than anything else. Political reform is linked to financial reform, and it is no use to talk of financial reform while one forgets of political reform.

As I said, I will be very brief because this is the Third Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill. With these words I leave it to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance to reply to the debate.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Laudium said that one should be very careful when one makes statements about sanctions and disinvestment. I think most of us agree that the least said on these matters, the better.

Coming to the Third Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill I want to point out to the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance that when we deal with Budgets—and this is an ongoing process— we have to take the question of pensions into account. It would appear that at the rate at which we are going pensions and welfare might well eat up the whole Budget and if something is not done to arrest this sad situation we may end up becoming a welfare state. My suggestion is that the Department of Finance should have a look at this and produce some sort of guideline or policy by which all employed people should contribute to a pension fund so that when they retire, they do not become dependent on the State. In this young and growing country there will always be demands on the resources and perhaps there will come a time when we will not grow at all but will start dishing out to all the needy.

During the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill yesterday the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council attacked the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon opposition members. I do not want to enter into any controversy because this is not a political debate. However, to set the record straight, I would like to quote from the editorial article in The Argus of yesterday, 15 February 1988 which is entitled: “Let Rajbansi resign.”

It says, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, this is not an attack. I think that we can read a message between these lines and if that message is not heeded there may be a lot of people who might have something to say about that.

Mr Chairman, my hon colleague referred to the editorial comment in The Argus on the state of health of the hon leader of the NPP. I do not know if it could be construed as being presumptuous of the editorial writer but I believe that the hon leader of the NPP knows the state of his health better than any editorial writer.

I believe that it ought to be left to the members of a party to decide for themselves on the state of that party. The party has in fact done so and the due democratic processes involved in party discipline should be allowed to take place and it has done so.

In secret. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member is aware of the fact that matters discussed in the caucus enjoy the confidentiality of the caucus.

I do not believe that the matter has been resolved. [Interjections.]

Today we are discussing the Part Appropriation Bill and the third reading of this bill has come soon after the hon the State President’s plea for …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister? Are those who are viewing the press report in a negative light out to destroy the House of Delegates? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think I made my views clear and the hon member heard me. I believe that the health of a person is best known by himself.

When he opened Parliament the hon the State President in his speech to the nation made a plea for restraint and for support for his efforts to reduce the rate of inflation. I believe that the support he is seeking should be given unstintingly, but whilst we give this unstinting support I believe that we should bring to the notice of the hon the Deputy Minister some areas of concern with regard to, what in our opinion, affects the inflation rate.

Other hon members have spoken about the affects of the Group Areas Act, and I do not think that this House has to apologise in any way for our persistent and consistent opposition to the Group Areas Act. After all we represent a community which has been hard hit by this Act over the years and I cannot personally stand and make apologies for our consistent opposition to the Group Areas Act.

Nonetheless, as regards the effect of the Group Areas Act on the rate of inflation I want to say that our housing programme itself is inhibited and is being delayed. To my mind this adds to the rate of inflation, because the longer it takes us to obtain land, the worse it gets. No matter how much we are opposed to this Act, it is needed in order to provide homes for our people. Therefore land has to be identified and proclaimed so that we can inject money in housing for our people.

However, at the moment the situation is that the delays in the proclamation and the investigations inhibit housing progress and this causes inflation.

Another aspect of this is that whilst we are short of homes, in White areas there are many homes which could be very well be shared with people who are in short supply. I want to mention in particular 16 duplex houses in Newcastle Road in Ladysmith. These houses belong to the SATS. They have been vacated recently by employees of the SATS and they are now deemed to be an eyesore and not suitable for human habitation.

However, just two months ago these houses were inhabited. When I made an application to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs for the use of these houses for victims of the flood disaster in Ladysmith, to the hon the hon the Minister’s credit, he gave me his support.

Unfortunately the local White leadership have seen fit to reject these houses. This is the type of thing that causes inflation, where on the one hand we have habitable houses and in many instances that I quoted last year, for example at Kwezi in Escourt, 30 habitable homes were razed to the ground because their Coloured inhabitants had moved to Colita and in a mining village about 20 kilometres from Ladysmith, habitable homes are razed to the ground. In Lyell Street we have had two habitable homes that were expropriated from an Indian owner, razed to the ground.

Now, we applied for these 16 houses which in my opinion are suitable homes. For those people who are living in disused cinemas, who share 25 to a two-bedroomed cottage, these houses would be deemed to be palaces. Yet we find local leadership applying a dog-in-the-manger attitude, saying that these houses ought not to be given to members of the Indian and Coloured population. I say that this adds to the rate of inflation in our country.

The hon member spoke about CBD’s. I support this viewpoint that the opening of CBD’s ought to be accelerated. My colleague, the hon Deputy Minister might say that the group areas and the opening of CBD’s is not a function under his portfolio, but I believe that he should convey a message to our colleague in the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning with an appeal that the group areas investigations, which delay and inhibit the proclamation of group areas and the proclamation of CBD’s, be speeded up.

I have a case in Escourt where we require a much needed piece of land for a sportsfield next to a school. This land is proclaimed for White occupation. More than a year ago an application by our Department of Education and Culture was made for the acquisition of this land, but we cannot acquire this land. Last week I received a letter from the municipality saying that in view of the delays, this land has now been withdrawn. The offer to sell this land to the House of Delegates has been withdrawn. This is not the fault of the Delegates Administration; it is an example of the type of delay that we say is totally unnecessary. If the department is short-staffed, I believe that this must be remedied.

Reference was made by the hon member for Stanger yesterday to libraries. We are today discussing the vote in respect of the provincial administration. I agree with the hon member for Stanger that the monies that will be appropriated today will be used to fund libraries in various towns in Natal especially, and also in the Cape, Transvaal and the Orange Free State. However, what is the effect of this funding? We here in Parliament vote money for library services, but the effect of this is that in many of these towns the libraries are closed to people of colour.

The provincial authorities issued a circular recently appealing to local authorities to open libraries to all race groups. The following is the reaction they received from various towns. I want to quote an extract from a Press report that appeared when the reaction of municipalities was reported:

The town clerk of Newcastle says more or less the same thing. Of all the towns that were canvassed, the only open towns were Empangeni, Westville, Port Shepstone, Eshowe, Kloof, Pinetown, Richards Bay, La Lucia and -Umhlanga. The other, racially exclusive libraries are in Vryheid and New Germany.

This is to us a matter of concern. We cannot vote money in this Parliament for racially exclusive libraries. However, there is one ironical thing about the Ladysmith Library. Last year, as a lover of books—I do a lot of reading—I went to the library in Ladysmith and asked to be enrolled as a member. I was told that I would not be allowed to do so. I am allowed to go to the library in Parliament and I am a member of the Cape Town Library, but in my own home town I was told that I would not be allowed to become a member.

I noticed a sign on the door of the library, which indicated, that in fact dogs are not allowed in this library. From this you may draw your own inference, Mr Chairman; in this library where I was not allowed membership, dogs are not allowed. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, privatisation was extensively discussed today, and I believe that privatisation is around the corner, especially privatisation of the Transport Services. I think it would be beneficial to us in this country to learn from countries like the Unites States and Australia, where they have in fact privatised transport services. Some of the problems entailed by this process of privatisation which emerged in these countries may well guide us along our road of privatisation. I should just like to list a few of the problems that are reported to have prevailed in these countries. In the United States, for example, it is reported that there was a drastic drop in the road safety aspects when transport was privatised.

Then there was a rampant tax erosion through people who entered the industry to make a fast buck. There were also illegal operations which, we understand, were the order of the day. It is frightening that the rate of accidents increased dramatically. I believe that we may well benefit by studying the ill effects of privatisation in these countries, so that we can learn from their mistakes and use this knowledge to prevent it from happening here when we embark upon this process.

The other matter that was extensively discussed yesterday, was the question of the value-added tax. This will be a reality in our country as from next year, I understand. I personally welcome the advent of VAT; which is to be introduced into our tax collecting process and which will replace GST. I believe that unscrupulous businessmen have been using the GST rather for their own benefit than for the benefit of the coffers of the State. Yesterday hon members also mentioned the effect that this will have on the poorer section of the population, where it will be included in the price of foodstuffs. The possibility of issuing food coupons was mentioned, which would assist the poor. I believe that the hon the Minister of Finance actually said: “Well, let us collect the tax and then help the poor”. I agree that VAT should not be excluded from foodstuffs, so that the rich will benefit as well as the poor. My advice to my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, is, to look into this system of issuing coupons now, to see if it is not possible to phase it in. If we are going to have coupons to help the poor of this country, this system of issuing coupons through our pensioners and the aged people should in fact be phased in along with the phasing-in of VAT. Some thought should be given to this now rather than phasing-in the one first and then the other. I believe my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I would like to comment on one very important aspect of how the Group Areas Act affects the economy of the country. It is very well for the hon the State President in his address to make statements and concentrate upon the economy of the country. I accept that, because we have to stabilise the economy.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether, when he prepares the Budget, he will consider the agricultural sector. The White agricultural sector is deep in debt. According to reliable sources the figure this year tops the R16 billion mark. While this is the case, I would also like to refer to last year’s hue and cry from this very House for additional agricultural land for farmers who are not White.

What worries me most is the fact that over and above the R1 billion which was allocated for the restructuring of agriculture, an additional R800 million is being set aside as a guarantee to the Land Bank against the loaning of money to the co-operative societies. That is almost R2 billion being allocated to a particular group of people who do not know how to carry on their business and who are sinking deeper and deeper into the mire of debt. However, the solution is simple.

There are many White farmers whom I know of who would like to sell out to willing buyers, or who would like to let their lands to willing lessees. However, this ludicrous Act known as the Group Areas Act precludes them from doing so. We have a vast number of trained, capable Indian farmers standing in the wings and crying out for land to farm on. Those farmers who can no longer manage their own affairs—those who are getting deeper and deeper into debt—should be given the opportunity either to sell out to anyone, regardless of the racial group to which they belong, or to let their land so that they will not fall deeper and deeper into debt. It should not be necessary for the State to provide this amount of almost R2 billion. The debt is increasing every year. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, may I first of all thank all hon members for their support. I do not want to dwell too much on some of the ideological aspects of the Group Areas Act, except to say that I think hon members would accept that things are very much better now than they were before, in the sense that during the past few years we have seen more neutrality entering into economic matters.

We have seen the opening of the CBDs. Some people say this is taking place too slowly. Others, in turn, would say that it is taking place too quickly and others would argue that it should not be taking place at all. The fact of the matter is that it has happened, that proclamations are being issued and that opportunities are being opened up.

It is also true to say that the industrial areas of our country have been opened and that the industrial areas are, by and large, open. It is also true to say that the Government has made huge demographic expenditures in order to correct past wrongs. That has occurred where inequalities have arisen for ideological reasons only, and the Government has set about trying to correct those imbalances.

For example, I have some figures here pertaining to wages for the various population groups. Between 1981 and 1985 the real remuneration per worker in the non-agricultural sector of our country grew at an annual average rate of only 1% for Whites, but 2,6% for others.

Let us take a look at health and welfare. Here the allocation from the central Budget rose from 11,7% of the Budget in 1975-76 to a figure of 17,8% in the 1986-87 financial year. That represents a growth of some 52%, and those funds went primarily to the poorer and disadvantaged people in our society.

One could look at education. The growth in regard to Black education amounts to a figure 40% higher than in the previous year. Those are the figures I have here. The proportion had grown from 13,4% in 1975-76 to 19,1% in the 1987-88 financial year, which far exceeds the average for both industrial and developing nations. I should like to point out that whereas the R9,1 billion allocated to education in the 1987-88 Budget represented an increase of 20% over the comparable figure for the previous year, the allocation in respect of Black education was up 40% on the previous year. One could go on like this. The hon member knows that there are massive demographic expenditures taking place, because ultimately we can only compete if we are all properly educated. Therefore, insofar as it is within the power of the State to do so, we create equality of opportunity by providing a basically adequate education.

One can see elsewhere, too, that the bona fides of the Government are clear.

One only has to look at the policies of inclusion such as the reaction of the Small Business Development Corporation and the massive training projects taking place in our country, with hundreds of thousands of people being trained in special skills. In the speech of the hon the State President the other day we heard of the new role of the IDC to create greater economic activity. The whole policy of privatisation is primarily aimed at removing these hindrances from people. We have seen it with taxes, which has been a matter of public debate, but also in many other fields. In Cape Town people are again appearing on the pavements selling fruit, vegetables and flowers, and shining shoes, things which had nearly disappeared from our society.

You locked them up in the police vans!

Sure. The fact of the matter is that we have seen the amendment of the Factories Act, and others. The Government is therefore serious about the question of following policies of inclusion, baking a bigger economic cake and providing more opportunities for all the people of South Africa.

As regards specific arguments which hon members might have about issues in their own areas, I am unfortunately unable to reply to such particular issues. However, it is always impressive for me to know how well-informed hon members are on matters in their local areas and it shows what a great interest they have in the welfare of their people in their constituencies. I admire them for that.

The hon member for Laudium spoke about the Governor of the Reserve Bank and said that this man should not have said what he did say. I do not want to enter into a debate on what the Governor should or should not say, but as I understand all the Governor in practice said was that we always said, namely that sanctions do not work. We have always said that they will not deliver more freedom, accelerate reform or force the South African Government in a direction in which it does not want to be forced, will not topple the South African Government and so on. Also we said that they would damage the regional economy as a whole, not only the South African economy, because there is no South African economy. There is only a Southern African economy, as Mr Reilly said yesterday again at a conference. In other words, the Governor was spelling out the reality so that people who really mean well with all the people of Southern Africa can alter their policy directions and know that well-meaning people who have follow those policies are at a blind alley and should think again.

It is my experience that in practice the conventional wisdom is growing that these policies of sanctions and disinvestment are ill-advised and ineffective. What have they meant? All they meant is that we have had to invest in more police and more soldiers. These are unproductive social expenditures which we would otherwise rather not have invested in. We would rather have spent the money on development and so on, but the Government of South Africa has a primary responsibility to protect the citizenry, so that people can go about their lives normally, quietly and peaceably, and we, the democrats, the people who work for and believe in expanding democracies, can get on with the job of doing that.

The hon member said that the growth-rate of 2,6% is allright, but it does not solve our problem. The hon member is of course correct. The fact of the matter is that 2,6% is not enough, when measured against the per capita growth needed. The problem there is of course not that the growth is not enough, but that the population growth is too fast.

If West Germany or one of the other countries with a fairly stable population were to record this growth rate everybody would say that it was excellent because the real standard of living would go up. The reason why our standard of living does not rise, is not because the economy is necessarily doing badly but because the population growth rate is doing too well. That is also a pressing matter that has to be addressed on a different level.

It is rewarding to know that in spite of sanctions, disinvestment, drought, a propaganda war against our country, a low-intensity war where people employ urban terrorism against us and in spite of regional wars caused by East-West conflicts into which we are sucked—these are all challenges which we have to face as a country— we have still managed to improve from a growth rate of, 5% to a growth rate of 2,6%. We have done that in spite of all these challenges and this is part of the miracle of the South African economy. It says a lot for the resilience of our economy and for the fortitude of the South African people.

The hon member mentioned the hon the State President’s opening address. He supported it and said that we should do likewise. I thank him for his words and his support of the programme which after all is not the hon the State President’s programme but a comprehensive programme that will set the whole nation upon a course of action to resolve the great underlying problems that face us all as a nation. The hon the State President has given us comprehensive leadership and he has brought the economy to the central focus point of our national life. This is most important because, as the hon member himself said, no constitutional or social advances are possible without a healthy, growing economy. On that count we are busy with other structural reforms, eg the work of the Margo Commission. This is a far-reaching and comprehensive effort to modernise our tax system and many benefits will flow from it.

The hon member also said that we should look at political reform. I want to say that we are doing that. Economic reform is a precondition for constitutional reform and not only will a growing economy accelerate the reform processes in our country but it is also an absolute precondition not only to bring about reform but to sustain any reforms that we might create in our society.

The hon member for Southern Natal agreed on sanctions and disinvestment. He spoke about pensions and I suggest that he raises that matter again at a different forum. It is an important matter to which the Government is giving its attention. I thank the hon member for his support.

The Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture said that he supported the moves of the hon the State President to bring down the rate of inflation. He said that he would give his support unstintingly and I thank him for that. He said that there were other causes of inflation apart from those that we mentioned and he said that the Group Areas Act was such a cause of inflation. I will accept the hon member’s argument that our country is overregulated and these regulations are certainly accepted by the Government as being central in reducing the role of Government in people’s lives and in the withdrawal of the Government from the private sector so that we can have the most productive use our capital base in South Africa.

However, there are also other needs such as social needs and competing needs. The hon member knows that and he will realise that as one proceeds one must have regard for all the competing needs and fears that exist in society. He says that he does not have to apologise for his stance on the Group Areas Act. I agree that he certainly does not have to do that as he is entitled to his opinion which I also respect. I have already replied to the hon member in my earlier reply to the debate. I have said that things are definitely improving and one can demonstrate significant reforms and advances in the country. The hon member says that the housing programme has been inhibited and delayed because of the Group Areas Act but that is not the only factor.

I had the privilege of serving on the Venter Commission a few years ago researching the whole question of the establishment of townships.

I can tell the hon member that in Natal he has the best situation in South Africa because in Natal it takes six to eight weeks for the average township to be proclaimed. In the Transvaal—I say this with respect—it takes that many years. Most hon members in this House are therefore better off than hon members in other parts of the country. Although I say this jokingly the fact of the matter is that the Government is serious about housing.

If there is one area on which the sincerity of this Government can stand any kind of scrutiny it is that of housing. This Government has created more homeownership in a shorter time than any other government in the history of this continent and of this country.

But they also took away many homes from people!

The fact of the matter is that when one considers that this Government has set out on an enterprise of selling all houses in public ownership to their inhabitants— there are 500 000 houses for sale—one realises that it is the biggest expansion of homeownership in our history.

With these historical costs and knock-down prices we are drawing people into the mainstream of the economic life of our country and helping them to put the first foot on the first rung of the ladder. On the scope and scale unknown in the history of this country and it will have farreaching consequences.

The hon member spoke about constitutional advance. Here is such an example of the interrelationship between constitutional advance and economic advance. One cannot have local government without ratepayers and one cannot have ratepayers without their being homeowners. Thus we have sealed this interrelationship.

I can go on about this for a long time, but I shall not. However, the hon member will know that only a year ago we launched the South African Housing Trust with a grant of R400 million to kick it off. In its first year that housing trust has already spent something like R360 million of the money allocated. It has another R140 million expenditure in the pipeline and it is attracting hundreds and millions of rand from the private sector into that joint enterprise. In the first year of operation it has already created 20 000 housing opportunities and made 10 000 plots available.

But they are still hamstrung by red tape!

Of course, but that is why the Government has a policy for deregulation. The fact is, however, that the housing trust —red tape or no red tape—has created 30 000 housing opportunities in the first year of its existence and that shows the sincerity of the Government.

The hon member spoke about Ladysmith and unfortunately I cannot respond to him on that. With regard to provincial libraries, if the hon member will forgive me, I am just not in a position to reply to him on that matter at all.

The hon member said that privatisation is around the corner and that we must learn from the US and Australia. He was referring to the fact that we could learn from other countries that have embarked upon this experience. I can only say to him that he is certainly correct. We do not have to re-invent the wheel. Other people have done many of the things that we are doing now and in fact we have done many things ahead of time. We privatised Sasol a long time ago and, as another example, we deregulated and set building societies on an equity route away from the highly regulated position they were in previously.

The British are going to come up with very similar legislation. So sometimes we are ahead and sometimes we are behind, but the hon member is certainly absolutely correct: We can learn from the experiences of other people and we do not always have to re-invent the wheel. We can simply do what other people have done. That will allow us to act more swiftly. The hon member mentioned VAT and that is a good example. Recently New Zealand converted to VAT and it seems to me to be very good legislation that we will certainly take a very hard look at when we plan the introduction of VAT.

He spoke about safety and the fears that he had with regard to privatisation. I have heard what he has said. He spoke about food stamps. Now food stamps are a very complicated business. It does not work all that well in most countries.

Certainly the principle is that we do not want to use the tax paid for social expenditure. We want to put social expenditures on the Budget. We also want to direct our limited resources at people who are identifiably poor. Whether or not we can use food stamps is something that we will look at in that whole process.

However, where we have spoken about introducing that, the hon member must bear in mind the pre-condition that we say that the VAT that we introduced should be a single rate with no exclusion. I think the hon member for Camperdown spoke about the tax erosion of GST that has taken place, where people are very often pocketing the tax. Of course that happens when one has differential tax. What we do not want, is to have any differential rates or exclusions. Having collected that money, we will then take any surplus funds and direct them at those people who really are in need of help. I thank the hon member for his support.

The hon member for Camperdown spoke about group areas. I think I have responded to that. He also spoke about the agriculture sector—he is very interested in the agriculture sector and the welfare of the sector. We appreciate that very much. He referred to the large amount that the agricultural sector owed. The agricultural sector owes a lot a money, but it is also worth a lot of money. Somebody once said: “You know, that chap does not owe a sixpence”. Then somebody else said: “Well, he is not worth a tickey”. The fact is that it is not what one owes, but what one owns that is important. Therefore it is no good saying that the agricultural sector owes a lot of money. It does, but there is also huge wealth within the agricultural sector. Certainly they have been through a bad time. We have had a series of droughts that have ravaged these people. I think that in the public interest the Government has acted responsibly in meeting the difficulties that have arisen as far as possible in respect of the taxpayer in order to nurse those people back into production. What happened to them is of course beyond their control.

The hon member says that we must now exploit the misery of these people by selling their farms to willing buyers, including people of colour, but I think that would be the wrong thing to do. Whether or not one should sell farms to people of colour in particular areas, is another debate. However, I think the hon member would agree that to use drought-ravaged farms would be the most inopportune thing for the Government to do.

I want to close by saying that there are very good signs in the economy at the moment. Many of the elements are there for healthy growth and economic progress in our country. Confidence is returning at a rapid rate, including producer confidence. Consumer confidence is returning; there is a demand for credit. There is pressure on capacity. People are complaining that they cannot deliver supplies, and that they are looking for permits. There is every sign that people are building up their inventory and their stocks. Spare capacity, as I have said, is being installed. The crops are looking reasonable; in most parts of the country the agricultural season looks good.

We have a Government that is absolutely intent upon living in a disciplined manner within its means. I do not think that we could demonstrate that any more adequately than we have in the past. The economy is charging ahead—the growth rate in the last quarter of last year was 5%. That is most encouraging. Money supply is under control in spite of the fact that we have had the crash of the stock market on 19th October last year. In spite of that the real economy in South Africa is doing well. All the portends are good, so that has not weakened confidence. That, coupled with the fact that we have a Government which has to a large extent focussed on economic management and have come with a comprehensive and imaginative package, a coherent policy, to address the problems of our time, is all devoutly to be wished. I think that we all can certainly take heart that things are looking better.

I want to thank the hon members for their participation in this debate and for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

I support the hon the Minister’s motion on the matter of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. He has already delivered his Second Reading speech to the House, and it has been circulated to all hon members. Therefore I do not propose to take up the time of this House this afternoon in paraphrasing that speech so that members who may not have understood it, will understand. I shall leave that to the members; they have the speech and must read it carefully.

However there are a few matters to which I should like to draw attention. This particular Bill proposes to make voluntary intoxication or voluntary addiction to drugs an aggravating factor in certain criminal situations. In the standing committee I argued in favour of the inclusion of the death penalty. This particular Bill provides that all other penalties will apply where liquor, drunkenness or intoxication has been found to be an aggravating factor. I felt that there was no need to distinguish the penalty for the simple reason that a man has committed a crime, and just because he was that drunk he can plead: “I was drunk.” He is found guilty, but he escapes the death penalty in a situation where the death penalty would have been imposed upon another person who was not that drunk.

Of course, I did not find support in the standing committee. Most of them—in fact all of them— do not believe in the death penalty, for some reason or other.

There is another matter that was raised in this House last year; a Minister spoke on the subject. I refer to the infamous case of the woman Margorie Moodley, who engineered a crime, was the author of the crime and in fact provided the methods and the means for the crime …

And the incentive.

… and the incentive. She now is free, but the man who fell victim to her nefarious business proposition is on Death Row.

I have always said I have no hesitation about the death penalty, but in this case, as long as the actual criminal is free in society, I say to the hon the Minister that this man must not pay the ultimate penalty. He is about 57 or 58 years old, and life imprisonment will keep him in gaol. However he is not the man who will commit a crime even if he is released, and I do not ask for his release. However, this woman, being free, can perpetrate another crime …

She will engineer it.

She will engineer it. I would say that this man should not pay the ultimate penalty. I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention in this House to the fact that this woman herself offered a reward of R10 000.

R20 000.

Or was it R20 000? When this reward was claimed she told the newspapers that it was only a joke. That is her attitude towards her crime. I again submit that the hon the Minister should, although the court did not find extenuating circumstances, look into whether or not…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In order perhaps to facilitate my reply and perhaps also to elucidate the issue that the hon member Mr Nowbath has raised, I ask if the allegation is that either of the parties was intoxicated. What I actually wish to know is, whether this is relevant to the Bill.

He is always irrelevant.

Order! I should like to ask the hon member Mr Nowbath to concentrate on the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, having said that, I have nothing to add except that, as this is the Second Reading of the Bill, I have a wide range on which I can talk.

Mr Chairman, I speak for hon members on this side of the House when I say that we fully support the principle of this Bill. With respect we have noted that here, once again, the hon the Minister has taken the correct route in formulating this piece of legislation. That route is by way of the Law Commission. As we were told by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech, he himself took the initiative of asking the South African Law Commission to inquire into the matter of the extenuating factor of being drunk when a crime is being committed. Again we wish to commend the hon the Minister in this regard, and thereby fully supporting the principle of the Bill. We fully support the whole Bill because we are of the belief that this legislation now correctly reflects the demands of society. And speaking of society, I do believe that I include therein all of South African society and not just the one represented in this particular Chamber.

It was the hon the Minister himself who raised the doubt whether the approach followed in this piece of legislation was not quite correct insofar as the contradiction of the so-called jurisprudential approach was concerned. In that regard I would like to submit—especially for the benefit of the hon member Mr Nowbath—that the purpose of all good law is to regulate society and protect it. This law, in fact, does that as I believe that society is protected by it. We know that not all the laws that we have in this country, in fact, do that. I would like to just make that distinction. I do not lay the blame therefor entirely at the door of the hon the Minister. With those few words we support this Bill.

Order! I should like to draw the attention of the hon member Mr Nowbath to the fact that the Second Reading debate on an amending Bill may not traverse the whole field of the principal Act. The debate must be confined to the Bill and matters reasonably related to it. Although matters outside the scope of the Bill may be mentioned, they may not be debated. If, for example, an amending Bill, amends a principal Act in various technical respects, hon members may not, at Second Reading, discuss matters of principle dealt with in the principal Act but not amended by the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Opposition spokesman on Justice is unfortunately not here this afternoon. However, I have read through this Bill briefly and I want to say that especially when one reads the hon the Minister’s Second Reading Speech one will note that the South African Law Commission was requested as early as 1983 to investigate and to report to the Minister on this particular aspect, amongst others. We in the ranks of the Official Opposition certainly respect the views of the South African Law Commission, and in view of that we have no objection to the Bill and we support it.

First of all, Mr Chairman, I should like to welcome the hon the Minister to this new Chamber. Yesterday someone referred to it as intimate chamber and I should like to state that, like himself, I too am making my first speech in this new Chamber.

The Criminal Law Amendment Bill before the House has been thoroughly investigated by the South African Law Commission since 1983, as the hon member for Havenside has just pointed, and in doing so it came to the following important conclusions.

Not a single concrete incident could be found in which too lenient a punishment had been imposed upon drunken offenders. Although it might appear to the layman that the courts tend to treat the drunk or the drug offender with too much leniency, the courts are in fact merely applying guidelines that have evolved in the process of doing justice to the offender as well as to society. The above conditions endorse the confidence in our legal system and the administration thereof, a confidence which I believe is justified and for which all of us should express our gratitude.

In the case of intoxicating liquor or drugs being consumed voluntarily before committing acts which are prohibited by law on penalty, persons who do so should nevertheless be held responsible and be punishable with such penalties as are prescribed by law.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to quote the hon the Minister’s Second Reading Speech without acknowledging it? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

I am highlighting it. [Interjections.] To repeat, Sir, such persons should nevertheless be held responsible and be punishable with such penalties as are prescribed by law in respect of the commission of such acts.

The consumption of liquor or drugs before committing an act prohibited by law should not be viewed not as mitigating, but rather as aggravating circumstances. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is a very interesting piece of legislation. In terms of South African law any person who commits a crime whilst his faculty of understanding has been impaired, cannot be held responsible for his act. This, of course, was not a very healthy situation. The finding of the Law Commission is that if someone causes the impairment of his faculty of appreciation of his wrongful act by the voluntary use of intoxicating liquor or drugs, he should be held legally responsible and punishable for any act prohibited by law.

However, it was felt that where a death penalty is incurred by reason of any wrongful act whilst the faculty of understanding is impaired by way of voluntary use of intoxicating liquor or drugs, such death penalty should not be imposed. In view of this, subsection 1 of the Bill we are now reading provides for the necessary penalty except the death penalty. Subsection 2 of section 1 provides for a conviction for the voluntary impairment of the faculty if the accused is not convicted on the main charge. This, I believe, will be a real deterrent for those who want to get drunk in order to commit any specific crime.

The hon member Mr Nowbath, as chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice of course insisted that an additional clause be inserted and he was instrumental in bringing about section 2. The Bill as it was produced for consideration only contained subsections 1 and 2. Section 2 came about at the insistence of the hon member Mr Nowbath and makes provision for aggravating circumstances in sentencing an accused. The aggravating circumstances of the accused’s faculty being impaired will be taken into account and the penalty will then be meted out accordingly.

I think that this piece of legislation brings about a circumstance whereby much injustice which has prevailed will now be removed and people who have been getting off very easily on serious crimes will now be brought to book. I want to commend the hon the Minister for having initiated this legislation. We support it fully.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank hon members for their support. Naturally it is a very interesting piece of legislation, because it seeks to address a sensitivity on the part of the public. It concerns the issue of people, having been brought before court, escaping justice, as the public interprets it, on a plea of intoxication. That, in short, is the problem which we seek to address.

According to the Law Commission’s report, in 1977 the HSRC published a research finding to the effect that 89% of the 5 000 were of the opinion that the courts should under no circumstances accept drunkenness as a defence in respect of serious crimes. This is perhaps an oversimplification of the problem, but nevertheless gives an idea of the sensitivity of the public on this issue. The Law Commission therefore sought to address the problem, not in a roundabout way, but by going to the very core of the issue, namely what the case is to be in the event of a person found not guilty if such person has imbibed liquor willingly and wittingly, and if such a person should have known that liquor would have a certain effect on him, making him more vociferous in the first phase, more belligerent in the second phase and eventually cause him to have complete disregard for the goods and chattels of other people.

That is the issue. They undertook a great deal of research and came to the conclusion that there were three approaches that were followed by other legal systems relating to this problem. Let us have a look at these three approaches. Firstly there is the absolute policy approach, relating to voluntary drunkenness or drug intoxication which is never a complete defence to criminal liability—it may not be raised and it will have no effect. Secondly there is the absolute jurisprudential approach. I am now referring to page 87 of the report of the South African Law Commission (project 49). The second approach is that voluntary drunkenness or drug intoxication may be a complete defence to criminal liability. Thirdly there is the integrative approach which entails, and I quote from page 88:

It appears from the report that the integrative approach is followed by some other countries. I should perhaps give hon members a short analysis of the situation to show that we should not feel alone. I quote again from page 88 of the report:

Hence the decision of Chretien. I quote further:

The integrative approach has therefore gained ground and has established itself in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Bophuthatswana and is recommended in England, Canada, Australia and Zambia. We have therefore not been alone in addressing the situation. The Law Commission has now suggested to us that we adopt the integrative approach. I want to quote the definition of it again as it appears in Chapter 6, page 88 of the report:

That is exactly what we have done in this Bill.

We can be sure of one result, and that is that various learned and perhaps not so learned gentlemen and ladies will come forward and analyse the Bill that is before the House. Hon members will perhaps find themselves criticised for coming forward with this solution and I trust that the hon member Mr Nowbath will then still be at my side. [Interjections.] I am sure he will be.

Chapter 8 of Part 3 of the Law Commission’s report gives us an idea of what can be expected. In South Africa the academic opinion was analysed as follows, and I refer to page 104 of the report. Firstly it deals with those in favour of the absolute jurisprudential approach, ie where intoxication could be a defence. I quote from page 104:

1. (a) A person cannot be held responsible for offences committed when he had no mens rea.

This is well-known to students of the law. It also supported the Chretien approach about which the planning committee had to learn a lot—they had to take cognisance of it.

It seems that this approach does command a lot of respect and is the current approach in this country. Those in favour of the absolute policy approach, namely that the public wants intoxication to be no defence at all, drew very limited support from academic circles. Prof Whiting of Wits University for instance submitted in writing and in oral evidence that:

Therefore even in academic circles, albeit limited, there is support for this absolute policy approach in other words putting all the weight on the side of public opinion.

However, as far as those who favour the integrative approach are concerned it seems as if the majority of academics who responded to the working paper supported the integrative approach. These respondents gave the following reason for their views and then we find an analysis of their reasons for supporting this view.

It seems to me as if the Bar is not very articulate on either alternatives. It is not very clear. They pointed to certain principles which were also well argued. The Law Society and the Side Bar agreed with the integrative approach and suggested the following:

We have followed that recommendation of the Side Bar.

Therefore it seems to me that we can perhaps summarise the expected reaction to the Bill as one that will receive support from some academic circles and may receive the support of the Side Bar. The Bar might argue about it, but at the end of the day it will be Parliament that will have to stick to its guns and when analysis and criticism appears in the newspapers members should not feel that they have erred, because right at the outset when the Chretien case was first published and became known there was a very healthy reaction to it. That decision was handed down by Mr Justice Rumpff who was Chief Justice at the time. It was a very well argued case with very clear guide lines for those who dispense justice.

Nevertheless we have opted now to find a different approach and we shall have to stick to it and see how it works in practise. I therefore thank hon members for their support. I am not going to mention individual members but you will forgive me, Sir, if I just remark that the hon member Mr Nowbath definitely argued his case very well and I would have commended him but for the fact that I think this case has not been called yet! [Interjections.] I suggest that the hon member does not demand a reply from me under the circumstances. I think perhaps it is contrary to his nature to have given evidence, to have prosecuted and to have found everyone wanting except for himself who has decided on this case. [Interjections.]

I think he should leave this issue to the course of justice which in this country is fair and equitable and does take all relevant factors into consideration. I think I have now given the hon member a reasonable reply and he will understand exactly what I have said.

Mr Chairman, may I congratulate you on presiding in a Chamber with so much quality and character. I am sure, Sir, that with all the qualities that you have displayed in the past, events and debates in this House will be to the credit of South Africa.

Finally, I hope that this Chamber will be marked by wisdom flowing from the lips of its members, rather than by matters of a caustic nature that mark debates elsewhere in the world.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, all I want to say is that this Bill proposes to marry different systems of personal law, and that the future should provide an interesting commentary on these efforts, particularly in relation to the multicultural content of our society.

Furthermore, I notice at the top of page 2 that the Law Commission has been involved over a considerable period of time in the matter. I should like to pre-empt the hon member for Springfield, to tell him that I have read that piece about the Law Commission and I hope that he does not belabour the Law Commission again.

Mr Chairman, I must with great respect differ with the hon member Mr Nowbath when he says that this Bill really marries different cultures, or rather proposes to marry different cultures. I think that the principle behind this Bill is in fact to legislate or to bring all the people of this country of ours under the same regulations and system of law relating to marriage.

There is no doubt that the Black people of this country have been discriminated against. However, it is more true to say that the Black women of this country have been discriminated against most; not only generally, but also in terms of their own customary law. The hon member Mr Nowbath knows this, because I was told that he had a pretty extensive divorce practice in the Black community. [Interjections.] I was merely commenting on the flourishing practice that the hon member Mr Nowbath had.

I would have thought that he would be very pleased with this piece of legislation, because obviously it makes his application of the law that much easier. There is no denying the fact that this is an enlightened piece of legislation, whether that hon member acknowledges that or not. [Interjections.]

Because one of the principles of this Bill is that the laws applicable to African people should now be the same as those applicable to non-Africans, we support this Bill.

We support the concept that all the legal consequences of marriage should be the same for all marriages in this country. However, there is one concept that I would like to raise here for consideration by the hon the Minister, and that is that the people who would really be affected by this law are not only practitioners who serve the Black community, like the hon member Mr Nowbath, but Black people in particular. It is a strange irony that here we have a piece of legislation which is really being passed for the benefit of Black people, and yet we have no Black opinion and we have no Black legislators commenting on it.

[Inaudible.]

I say this despite the fact that the SA Law Commission took evidence very widely, and I am aware that the Law Commission consulted, and discussed the entire matter, with leaders of the homelands and other Black leaders. Nevertheless I should like to make the point that here again we have a strange irony. We are legislating for Black people’s rights in a paternalistic manner without their proper consultation and participation in the functions of this Parliament.

Mr Chairman, we too support the Bill, and in doing so wish to point to one or two issues.

I think it is relevant that the great disadvantages that Black women have suffered all these years under the provisions of the customary union are now being brought into line with the rest of the women in South Africa by the SA Law Commission and the hon the Minister.

The second point which I think it is important to note and which has been touched on is that we welcome, in this piece of legislation, the right of all communities to be governed equally under legislatures which will govern everywhere else in South Africa. I think it is good for reform, and encouraging, that this hon Minister, for whom we have great respect, is taking the initiative in trying to resolve this very thorny issue in having different legislation for different people.

The one important aspect that was always highlighted and which the Law Commission looked at very seriously—this needs to be mentioned here—is a very peculiar thing in the marriage of Black people. I quote:

This creates a tremendous problem, namely that, in the absence of this piece of legislation, a man could go and marry again.

We welcome this particular aspect. My only plea, particularly since we are dealing with a community which is widespread in the rural sphere, is that this piece of legislation be widely published so that they are made aware that there are certain time factors which they need to take into account.

I refer in particular to one aspect, namely that they have just one month, and I quote:

I am quite sure that the department and the hon the Minister will take this into account, that it will be welcomed and that precautions will be taken and all available assistance given to ensure that this piece of legislation is rightfully implemented and that the community will benefit greatly. It think it affords tremendous protection for Black women in the future. I welcome this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of this Bill. I am pleased that this Bill will rectify a number of anomalous situations that exist at present. I refer to tribal marriages. The reason why Black women are regarded as minors historically goes back to the “lobola” system. A man basically used to buy his partner from her parents with cattle, after which she became his property and she had no legal standing. She became a minor for life. In my lifetime I have experienced that there were marriages of that nature where a man had three wives. Upon occasion, as the only daughter of her father, a woman might inherit all her father’s cattle. She could, however, not sell the cattle or otherwise dispose of them. Her husband then became the curator and, being what he was, he controlled everything. The legislation is welcome, late as it is. I fully appreciate the reason why the Blacks were not considered in last year’s Bill relating to matrimonial property. This matter had to be thoroughly investigated by the Law Commission, whose recommendations are embodied in this Bill.

A second anomaly, and it sounds rather silly and stupid, is to have two separate sets of laws in one country. With South Africa’s criminal law we have one set of rules to govern everyone. If a Black man commits a crime he receives the same punishment as a White man would. However, I support this Bill fully.

Mr Chairman, past attempts at the harmonising of two forms of marriage, namely the civil marriage and the customary union entered into by Black persons in South Africa, have been fraught with difficulties and have given rise to anomalies —for example legislation designed to protect the customary wife has resulted in inequality of treatment in respect of civil marriages and resulted in consequent hardship. Rather than attempting to resolve the dualism by ad hoc protective measures currently in force, the Bill before the House embodies a sound approach by achieving parity of treatment with regard to the civil marriage. It is also gratifying to see that the ultimate goal is a system of uniform and equitable options which will eventually include the recognition of the customary union as a valid marriage. Respect for the Western legal system as well as the customary law would leave the fabric of law relating to the institution of marriage as undisputed as possible and leave to the parties themselves the choice of what shape their marriage is to take. By recognising both forms of marriage discrimination is obviated. By adopting a flexible rather than a rigid approach it is possible to take into account the complex social and economic circumferences as well as popular perceptions.

The fact is that the civil marriage of Blacks will now be in community of property by operation of law. The support of the Black community is very clear from the report submitted to the hon the Minister by the South African Law Commission. It is to be welcomed that Black women will now enjoy the improved status and legal position brought about by the Matrimonial Property Act, Act 88 of 1984.

The hon the State President said last year that South Africa was one nation and I am happy that we are now going to have one piece of legislation for all South Africans.

For the information of the hon member for Red Hill, I should just like to tell him that this Bill has been extensively advertised and welcomed by lawyers in an article in The Sowetan. There has also been a seminar on the Black married situation, and an article was written in a Black newspaper by a Black attorney, Doli Mokhalle.

Mr Chairman, this piece of legislation is another monument to the hon the Minister because when he submits legislation, the Standing Committee on Justice finds very few flaws in it and there is very little to argue about. This was one of those pieces of legislation that were reported without any amendments.

The Standing Committee on Justice is not a very easy committee to deal with, and therefore the Standing Committee on Justice requested the hon the Minister of Justice to consider extending the provisions of subsection 7(3) of the Divorce Act, Act 70 of 1979, to marriages automatically entered into out of community of property, with special reference to marriages entered into outside the Republic. That is why I say that the proceedings in the Standing Committee on Justice do not flow all that smoothly and therefore the hon the Minister now has something else to scratch his head about.

In terms of the prevailing law the legal consequences of a marriage do not apply to a marriage between Black persons, just as in the case of marriages in the Indian community, whether by Hindu tenet or the Islamic tenet. However, it is necessary to protect the Black wife and the descendants of a customary union. Marriage in community of property seems to be somewhat foreign to the Black person and the Black woman does not enjoy the benefits emanating from the Matrimonial Property Act of 1984. In the absence of the exclusion of the marital power, the Black wife remains subject to the marital power of her husband and the remedies at common law offer little or practically no protection where the husband may be an incompetent administrator.

Because customary marriages are not recognised as valid the husband may enter into a marriage with another woman without dissolving his union with the woman with whom he has entered into matrimony according to the customary tenet. It is therefore imperative that such a marriage with a woman other than the wife with whom a customary union subsists, be prohibited, and therefore this legislation was brought about.

In particular, subsection 1(7) protects the rights of the customary wife and her issue—this is very important—whereas subsections 1 and 2, each of which merely negates and confirms the other, in particular have the effect that a customary union may be legalised. At the same time, however, if the husband has a customary union with another woman, that union must be dissolved before he can legalise his marriage with any other woman.

This legislation also amends various other pieces of legislation. For example, clauses 3, 4 and 5 of this Bill amend sections 21, 25 and 26 of the Matrimonial Property Act of 1984.

Clauses 6 and 7 of this Bill amend clauses 89 and 102 of the Deeds Registries Act (Act No 47 of 1937). These are very important amendments which have been brought about. There is also a provision for the registration of a marriage within two years of the commencement of this Act and this is contained in clause 3.

This Bill as a whole brings about a very important amendment to the existing law, and, as has been said by previous speakers, this is a very welcome piece of legislation. We accept it as such. The standing committee approved of it without any amendments and therefore I commend the hon the Minister on this.

Mr Chairman, in reply to the debate I think it is perhaps proper that I refer to the last speaker firstly, since he is the only one who has actually sought to improve on the Bill, and therefore on the Law Commission’s work. Ido not fault him on this. As a matter of fact I commend him, as well as the Standing Committee on Justice. It is a very fine committee, which specialises in law and justice matters, and I am under the impression that they have improved with time. As a matter of fact, they have all become students of the law, so much so that I think that we have made better practitioners of them. I would not be surprised if they find compensation for their studies in enhanced reputations back home.

In reply to the hon member for Actonville, who has given us a very reliable and elaborate analysis of the Bill, the recommendation of the standing committee on the issue of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act must of course go back to the Law Commission, and we have already referred it back. It is of course a very interesting question, namely whether it is fair and equitable, and of course practical, to apply the provisions of that Act, which more or less arranges for the possibility of a redistribution of assets where there has not been an agreement by either parties to enter into an antenuptial contract, or where they have in fact entered into such a contract or where they have failed to make applicable earlier or at any other stage the accrual system. In other words, we are looking at the case where the husband could not be persuaded and where the people have not entered into a marriage in community of property whereby the wife could share in the proceeds of an estate that is growing through the efforts of both of them. The issue therefore is whether marriages entered into outside the country should or could fall within the ambit of that section. This is a very interesting question and I think we should, as we usually do, apply our minds to it, make a proper analysis and then come back to Parliament. I take note of what the hon member has said.

The hon member Mr Nowbath was less articulate on this Bill than on the previous one, but this is not because he is not informed. I can assure hon members that I always hold a brief for him. He is always well-informed and on the ball. The hon member has indeed made vast contributions already and hon members should not judge him for being less articulate on this Bill. He is with us all the time.

The hon member for Springfield mentioned in passing the situation of discrimination and that the customary law of Black people have brought about injustice against women.

That may be so but he will agree that if we seek to address those injustices there should be wide consultation—that is in fact what he pointed out. Perhaps he has failed to notice that Prof Dhlamini was an additional member for the particular purposes of this investigation. He sat with certain full-time members of the commission and he made a very valuable contribution towards the ultimate findings.

As time progressed it also became apparent that the Black people themselves were realising that they should use the facilities of a common law marriage and apply it to their own advantage. Statistics show that in the period 1980-84 99,5% of marriage contracted under the common law were in community of property. This means— and practitioners will know this—that parties had to go especially to the officials and make a statement that they prefer the marriage to be in community of property. Thereby they also accepted the situation that the marital power remained in the hands of the husband whether in the case of Blacks it is a marriage in or out of community of property.

They themselves decided that the marriage should be in community of property which shows a certain sensitivity to the advantages of a matrimonial property system in community of property. It is therefore quite clear that we are justified in deriving from all this information that the Black people have become sensitive over the years as far as the advantages of the common law system are concerned. It also appears that many more Black marriages than White marriages are contracted in terms of the common law these days.

Is that in terms of numbers?

Yes, in terms of numbers. It is a very interesting and thought-provoking situation. The hon member for Springfield has just shown his interest and seeing that he is a lawyer I am not surprised that he is interested in the number of marriages. However, I am not suggesting that any hon member in this House would be interested in an increase in divorces.

What about Islamic marriages?

I will make a statement about that if the hon member wants me to.

The figures show that in 1985, 41 313 White couples entered into a marriage in terms of the common law rights that govern such a marriage. The number for Blacks was 53 436, for Coloureds it was 20 000 and for Asians 7 919. This reflects a most interesting and encouraging situation.

I mentioned all this in passing. This Bill represents a further step towards the reform of our matrimonial property system. Hon members in all the Houses know what this Bill entails and they all support this reform. This is of course significant.

What does this show? It shows that the 1984 reform has been successful. I would not have commanded any support of any nature whatsoever if history had shown today that the reform of 1984 had failed.

The hon members may not have statistics at their disposal to enable them to agree or disagree with me, but they live with the daily impression that the matrimonial property dispensation which we introduced into this country in 1984 is a success. Perhaps I should quote some statistics in support of my claim that it is a success. To date on average—and I am now using statistics available since December 1984 to December 1987—64,4% of all marriages in which and where an antenuptial contract has been entered into has opted for the accrual system. This is very significant because it shows that more than 50% of the people who decide not to enter into marriage in community of property but opt for a marriage in terms of an antenuptial contract have in turn decided to enter into the accrual system. This is very significant.

Members are aware that as in the case of the Bill, we have certain periods available to parties who want to avail themselves of the facilities in the Matrimonial Property Act—I am referring now to the 1984 Act. Members will recall that it is possible to change the property dispensation altogether. No period is attached to that and parties may go to court at any time. On other issues, for example, the marital power, the abandonment of marital power either in community of property or out of community of property but retained in terms of the antenuptial contract, these time limits will again come up for consideration in October 1988.

I think I should use this opportunity to invoke the support of the Press for bringing to the attention of the public that they should perhaps apply their minds and come forward to do the necessary if they want to make use of those facilities and provisions. I shall not indicate now what my position will be in October this year but it is possible that we may terminate the period in which people may do the necessary. I think the Press would perhaps assist us with regard to this.

The hon member for Red Hill has made a very important point. I understood him to ask me to ensure that the information should perhaps be made known to the Black public with regard to the facilities now created in this Bill. Members will recall that in 1984-1985 we embarked on a campaign to bring the new Matrimonial Property Act to the attention of the public. I think it is but a fair, reasonable and wise request that we should do the same now. I shall ask the department to do the necessary and to see what we can do to give us as wide as possible publicity to the facilities of this Act.

Finally, it seems to me that I must also address the issue of customary unions. My reply to the hon member for Springfield is that subsection 1(b) of the Bill provides that:

The hon member for Umzinto has read from the synopsis of the report, and it was brought to my attention that it is not fair, that there should be the possibility of a further customary union. No, Sir, this Bill is very specific in that respect. This could be interpreted as a first step towards recognising customary unions. I think hon members will agree with me that this is but a reasonable step in view of legislation which we passed last year in order to regularise the position of illegitimate children.

Hon members will also know that I referred to this issue in my Second Reading speech, namely that we cannot legislate now on the validity of customary unions. This is a matter for negotiation with the countries that have their own parliaments and make their own laws. For that reason I have approached the Law Commission and it has already been decided by Parliament that the Law Commission will negotiate with these TBVC countries and the self-governing countries to see whether they are ad idem with us on the issue of customary unions recognised as a valid marriage. Then this provision will perhaps have more substance.

Finally, the hon member for Springfield has asked about Islamic marriages. A thorough background study is now being made with a view to consultation with exponents of different schools of thought on Islamic law and the application thereof in South Africa. Research is also being done in order to compile a working paper for general information and comment. In this process a comprehensive questionnaire has been compiled and distributed amongst Muslim organisations and individuals. The questionnaire was despatched during November 1987, with a return date of 29 February 1988. Several requests for the extension of time has been received. These requests have been granted, and it is indicative of the interest in the topic.

I want to thank hon members once again for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I shall deal very briefly with this Bill.

One of the problems in this Bill, or one of the matters raised by this Bill, is the question of when foreign is not foreign and when domestic is not domestic. That, basically, is a summary of the Bill.

Next —I am being cryptic, I know, but I know what I am saying—this Bill proposes bypassing the diplomatic bag as a means of communication on certain matters between independent states, as between one state and another.

Thirdly, I am afraid that I do notice that this particular Bill is simply the “Enforcement of Foreign Civil Judgments Bill”. It is not an amending Bill.

I shall not take advantage of that to go into a political exercise. I presume that I cannot be limited on this one with regard to any kind of political excursion, but I think that at this late hour I am not aiming to get myself into Hansard or into the newspapers. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I think I have a sufficient academic background, extending over 45 to 46 years, not to be worried about little pieces in newspapers!

Before I take my seat I think I am going to say to the hon member for Springfield: “Gotcha!” There is no question of a law commission on this Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall take my cue from the hon member Mr Nowbath on this particular Bill and say that I wish to be very brief. We have no problems with this Bill and we support it. However, we should like a further explanation from the hon the Minister as to why he feels that clause 8 of this Bill is in fact justified.

I say this because unlike the hon member Mr Nowbath, I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice, and I am not quite sure what was canvassed in that committee regarding this particular clause.

With these words, I should like to resume my seat.

Mr Chairman, in supporting this Bill I am happy to say that it will be of great assistance to a lot of people who have lost money before in this country. If a judgment is registered and is simplified, the method of registering that judgment is simplified, perhaps in England, France, America or anywhere. This will create a fear in a lot of people who might wish to abscond this country by letting their creditors down. However, it will become too costly to register a judgment overseas. It will not be possible for one who has lost money and who has suffered, throwing good money after bad money, to go and register a judgment, trying to recover whatever he can. What will happen if I have a judgment on someone in this country and we have no diplomatic ties with another country where this gentleman has absconded? How do we go about that? Similarly there will be a lot of other problems that will have to be overcome by the one who wishes to register a judgment overseas. How does one go about this? This will all have to be clarified and simplified for the one who has suffered in this country at the hands of crooks who do people in and run off with a lot of money. I know of one family who were trading in Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg. These people simultaneously absconded in one ship and took everything—lock, stock and barrel. The creditors could do nothing about it. They returned after three years and did a similar thing and I was a victim on both accounts. [Interjections.] This is why I am glad to say a few words, because it is of interest to me.

Many years ago, when I was in India, one legal practitioner had a flourishing practice as far as divorce cases are concerned. There was another gentleman who had a business, selling goods on credit. The legal practitioner dealt in cash. He had an open safe in which the notes were piled up—cash bank notes. Poor Mr Ismail who sold his goods on credit had his books in a safe as well. However, in his safe all the documents were being eaten by rats. These rats were often chased but they always got away. Therefore, what is of interest to me, is that we may be able to recover something by bringing someone back from over there or by attaching his money?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Bay has raised a number of very interesting issues and perhaps I can respond in a light vein by saying to him that he may as well raise these points again with the hon the Minister of Finance, bearing in mind those piles of notes. [Interjections.] Perhaps he could also relate this to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare because there were rats running around there. However, I take his point and I believe that the very section which the hon member for Springfield referred to, namely clause 8 which links up with clause 3 (2), could be of assistance to the hon member for Durban Bay.

Once a judgment namely is registered with the Clerk of the Court, the latter is obliged to direct a notice to the judgment debtor, informing him of such registration. This is in terms of clause 3 (2). He, in turn, is interdicted from disposing of any assets. In other words, the idea is to facilitate the execution process considerably. It is a facility which has a value for every judgment creditor, no matter in what country he actually seeks to have his remedy.

What I must point out, however, is that it is not a remedy or a facility that is available to each and every judgment creditor. It only applies to a creditor of this country, for instance, as opposed to a judgment debtor in the Transkei, the Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and Venda, because it is all based on negotiation and agreement on the part of these countries. They have already agreed to that effect and they will now also—if they have not already done so—pass similar legislation to the effect that they will subject themselves to judgments emanating from this country.

However, it will not be limited to these countries alone. It will apply to each and every country that sees fit to enter into a similar agreement with us and then eventually to legislate along similar lines in their parliaments. Therefore it is possible, if we adopt a broad view and if we are optimistic, that more and more countries will see the benefit of this very speedy method of execution and that they will eventually adopt such legislation after proper negotiation.

However, I do catch the drift of the hon member for Durban Bay’s speech. I shall study a copy of his speech and if I can be of any practical assistance to him, I shall be only too proud to do so. As I say, perhaps he may raise the issue once again with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance. I think he may have inspectors ready and willing to share in those piles of notes. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Actonville and the hon member Mr Nowbath made their usual valuable contributions. The hon member for Actonville pointed out to us that the standing committee had seen fit to comment on the issue of interlocutory orders. He used another expression, but I think it boils down to interlocutory orders. I shall study their recommendation and if it is at all possible to give effect to a particular recommendation, we shall do so. Otherwise, we shall study it very carefully.

The hon member for Springfield asked me about the application of clause 8. The purpose of clause 8 is very clear. It links up with the provisions of clause 3 (2) which will become section 3 (2) of the Act, and that section will provide as follows:

First of all, it is a cheaper procedure than going to the Supreme Court, for instance. In other words, it is possible to have a judgment debt of, say R1 million registered by the clerk of the court. Therefore, it is a relatively cheaper procedure.

Secondly, a notice is then to be directed to the judgment debtor. As a practitioner, the hon member will know that many a time if a judgment debtor is allowed sufficient time, he either absconds or alienates or does something else to his assets. This will serve as an order of court prohibiting him from doing so. I should imagine that a further application to the court may probably then be made, with the eventual inevitable attachment of assets. I, therefore think it is a very interesting method that the Technical Committee on Juridical Matters has adopted, and I think we should perhaps see how it works in practice. It may represent a speedy method of execution and we may perhaps adopt it elsewhere if it works in practice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Order! On behalf of the hon Ministers and hon members of this House, I wish to express thanks to the hon the Minister for his kind words and wish him and his department well.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, this Bill which came before the Standing Committee on Law and Order has been a very interesting one. It deals with two very interesting clauses in the Act.

Firstly, in terms of the memorandum, and I quote:

The amending clause, clause (6B), reads as follows, and I quote:

1. (a) the board shall make recommendations to the Minister in regard to any punishment which may be imposed upon the commissioned officer under subsection (6C) …

Subsection (6C) reads, and I quote:

1. (a) if he is of the opinion that for any reason there was a failure of justice, set aside the finding of the board; or
2. (b) direct that no further action be taken in connection with the matter; or
3. (c) direct that the matter be resubmitted to him for disposal in terms of this section after the expiry of such period, not exceeding 12 months, as he may specify …

Then there is also the question of the fine which is being increased from R200 to R300.

Subsection (b) describes the role of the board and the Commissioner after an officer has been found guilty. In terms of the existing legislation the board must and the Commissioner may make recommendations in respect of the punishment which may be imposed upon the officer. The suggested amendment has the effect that the board’s and the Commissioner’s powers are separately and clearly set out. The board is compelled to make a recommendation in respect of the punishment which may be imposed in terms of section 6 (c). The Commissioner is granted authority to make a recommendation in respect of the findings and the recommendation of the board.

This particular Bill deals with a further clause:

The amending clause 4 reads as follows:

The explanation in the accompanying memorandum is as follows: The proposed insertion is similar to section 17 (1A) (a) of the Act which provides for the summarily dismissal of a noncommissioned member undergoing imprisonment without the option of a fine, the only difference being that when a commissioned officer is discharged on the abovementioned ground it must be done by the Minister and not by the Commissioner. A board of inquiry would thus, in future, not be a prerequisite to dismissal of a commissioned officer.

This Bill came before the standing committee and it was debated very well before consensus was reached. It brings a certain relief insofar as the Police Force is concerned. It received the support of this side of the House in the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the hon member Mr M Thaver in future not to bore hon members in the House by reading extensively from the legislation.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That hon member is talking a lot of nonsense.

Order! That is not a point of order.

I would like to repeat that I want to appeal to the hon member Mr M Thaver not to bore us by reading extensively from the memorandum and the Bill itself. Every hon member in the House has all these documents and I take it that they all understand what is contained in the literature before them.

You do not know what you are talking about. [Interjections.]

The hon member says that I do not understand the contents of this Bill. I want to react to that by telling that hon member that not only does he not understand fully the contents of the Bill but also every other piece of legislation that has come before the House since it was created. That is why that hon member has nothing to add to the debates in this Chamber apart from reading from official memoranda.

That is a laughable statement. [Interjections.]

We are pleased with this Bill and I am sure that the hon the Minister will be pleased to hear that we support it. Our support of the Bill derives from the fact that we believe that the very purpose of this Bill is to show and regulate discipline within the hon the Minister’s department, and this we welcome. At the same time we are gratified that the discipline which the hon the Minister wishes to enforce within his department will be done on the basis of equity and justice and on the basis of affording members of his department the protection of the audi alteram partem rule in terms of which members of his department will be afforded all the privileges and rights to fully defend themselves.

This Bill really affects commissioned officers in the department. As I understand it the so-called “kitskonstabels” are also of similar rank. I would like to ask the hon the Minister if the provisions of this Bill will in fact also apply to the so-called “kitskonstabels”.

They are “kits” or special constables.

Yes, special constables.

These special constables, as the hon the Minister will know, are constables who have been appointed rather quickly and have not had the full instruction and training that is normal in the preparation of policemen.

A crash-course!

That is quite right. As the hon member has indicated, they have undergone a crash-course and are now in positions of trust and are in fact supposed to be upholding law and order.

As all hon members of this House are aware these special constables are in fact the cause of a lot of concern in many of the areas in which they operate. I would therefore like to ask the hon the Minister whether in fact the provisions of this Bill fully apply to those special constables as well, as indeed I believe it should.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the Police with the celebration of the 75th year of their existence. I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate this afternoon.

Also say it in English.

Do you want me to repeat it in English? In supporting this Bill I want to congratulate the Police on the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Police Force.

We know the part that was played by the Police over these years in combating crime and upholding law and order. We are also aware of the criticism that has been levelled at the Police from time to time as far as discipline is concerned. With the provisions in this particular amending Bill where it tightens up the sentences on police officers we welcome this amendment.

I conclude by saying that we have no hesitation in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Official Opposition I would like to take this opportunity to extend our deep condolences to the bereaved families of those policemen who lost their lives whilst travelling from Pretoria to Mossel Bay. We hope that the hon the Minister will convey our message.

This particular Bill is designed to improve further the image of the South African Police Force by increasing certain fines. Amongst other things, provision is also being made to widen the scope for declaring a member of the Police Force unfit to remain in the Force.

I am sure that the amendments in the Bill must have been welcomed by many policemen who are sincere, true and dedicated to the Police Force. Those few who bring the Police Force into disrepute will have a greater amount of awareness due to this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to say that I regard it as an honour to have the opportunity to be with you and hon members here in this beautiful new House this afternoon. As I sat here listening to the debates on the Bills of my colleague the hon the Minister of Justice and saw all the calm and peacefulness I thought the reason for that was the beautiful House.

Just as I was thinking this, there was the little altercation between this hon member and my hon friend on that side, but strangely enough it calmed down quickly and maybe it was because you were looking at them rather sternly, Mr Chairman.

It was because of the presence of the Minister of Law and Order!

Oh, is that the reason. In any case, I would like to say that this is a beautiful Chamber and I hope and trust that the debates in this Chamber will be to the benefit of this House and to the peoples of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I also want to thank you and the members of the standing committee for the assistance in considering and finalising this Bill quickly and very competently. I also want to thank hon members for their support for this Bill. I really appreciate that.

The hon member Mr M Thaver referred to some of the clauses and I want to thank him for his support and the valuable contribution made here by him this afternoon.

I think that it is fair to the members of the SA Police Force that I as the Minister, and the Commissioner of Police, must have all the available evidence before we decide on the future of a member.

This is what is being envisaged in this Bill. We do not want to decide on a person’s future if we do not have all the available information.

The hon member also referred to the dismissal of members. We will not dismiss any member of the Force if we do not have all the available information.

The hon member for Springfield said that he was pleased with the Bill, and I want to thank him for that. He said he believed that this will assist us with discipline within the Force and I agree with him. It will make things easier and it will be quicker to make decisions. He also said it is clear that we will apply this Bill with equity and with justice. I agree with the hon member.

The hon member asked about the instant constables. We prefer the name “special constables”. I think we ought to look at the situation of the special constables in the correct perspective. They are temporary members of the Force and they have received training for a specific job, namely to try and maintain law and order in the Black townships. We cannot and we do not use them to investigate criminal acts. With them we have really tried to bring back the “Bobby on the beat”, to bring back law and order on the streets in the Black townships.

I am the first to concede that in some instances they have overstepped the mark. I want to assure hon members that where this has happened, we have acted strictly against them. We do not hesitate to take them to court if they in any way overstep their mark. The discipline in the South African Police is very strict. However, I want to point out that being a temporary member of the Force a person can be dismissed immediately. This clause which gives myself and the Commissioner the right to dismiss a person within the first 12 months of service does not apply to them, because they are temporary members of the Force and they can be dismissed immediately, although they may have had two or three years of service.

Hon members must also bear in mind that considerable criticism is being levelled at these constables. I want to tell hon members that they have succeeded in the townships, where they have operated properly. They have succeeded in calming down the unrest and in curbing violence. Our radical opponents in this country do not like these special constables because they have been acting against them. The special constables have been able to curb violence and reduce unrest in our country.

With these few words I should like to assure the hon member for Springfield that we do not tolerate any acts of violence, overstepping the mark and undisciplinary conduct by any member of the Force, whether it be a permanent member or a special constable.

*My good friend the hon member for Laudium spoke beautiful Afrikaans and I want to thank him in the first instance in Afrikaans for the good wishes. [Interjections.] Yes, they must not bother Laudium; it is also part of my rural area.

†He is my neighbour in Pretoria. I think that if we stand together we can take on a lot of people. Therefore I want to thank him for his very good wishes on the 75th anniversary of the Police. For us it is a special year, and we intend to draw in hon members and the Indian community in our festivities to an even greater extent during the rest of the year. We shall be in contact with hon members, and I should like to thank the hon member for Laudium for his good wishes, his support and his kind words towards the SA Police. We sincerely appreciate them.

I wish to express my thanks to the hon member for Havenside …

He is a good friend of the Police Force.

Well, I want to thank him for his very kind words regarding the tragic accident in which 13 policemen were killed.

He is a friend of the Police Force, but on the right side of the law!

Well, in the Police we are always on the right side of the law.

I should like to thank the hon member for his very kind words and I wish to assure him that I shall certainly convey them to the families concerned.

With these few words I want to thank hon members once again for their support and the pleasant way in which they discussed this Bill here. We sincerely appreciate it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I want to place on record that we on this side of the House who had representation on the standing committee were unable to support the State Land Disposal Amendment Bill.

The reasons for not supporting it are based on three principles. One is that it entrenches the whole concept of own affairs as envisaged in the Constitution. My submission is that most hon members who entered the tricameral system claimed at the time that their participation was intended as a strategy and was not intended to entrench an imperfect system. They complained at the time that there were many deficiencies, which they acknowledged publicly. There was an undertaking to the community and the people that we would not come here and entrench the system. I respectfully submit that this particular Bill, if promulgated by Parliament, does in fact entrench the system.

The second aspect is that we said we wanted to see the repeal of the Group Areas Act. I think members on both sides of the House have made that statement publicly. Whether they have made it privately I do not know, but publicly they have. If that is the situation, it again entrenches the concept of group areas. Now, if we want to be consistent and effective in our participation then we must do what is necessary. This Bill came before the standing committee. No hon member was forced to support this Bill, but they willingly supported this Bill. In effect, therefore, they are supporting the system, and they are supporting the further entrenchment of the system. Now we are becoming co-legislators in this particular regard. I should like to appeal to hon members to reconsider their attitude in this regard.

This Bill envisages the transferring the authority of the hon the State President by assignment to a Minister under own affairs. He talks about an anomaly in regard to which the Minister of Public Works can transfer such an assignment to officials. I have problems with the proposition that it be transferred to the Ministers under own affairs. Let us consider the speech by the hon the Deputy Minister:

And I emphasise—

The third aspect is that the hon the Minister under own affairs will now be responsible to sell, exchange, donate or lease State land. I do not want to create any acrimony in this particular debate. Suffice it to say that there have been many allegations and counter-allegations with regard to the way the whole question of land is being handled by this Administration.

Without proof.

Whether or not without proof, as the hon member says, the allegations are there, placing a question-mark on credibility. Whilst that is the position, we do not want to exacerbate the situation. We need to publicly clear that particular stigma that seems to cling. We can argue amongst ourselves and say nice things or ask for proof and evidence, but certain perceptions are created in the minds of the people. As we represent people here, we cannot ignore those perceptions. One has to remove any wrong perceptions. I contend, that to transfer land will create further suspicion among those people.

To those who are enthusiastic in supporting this Bill, I wish to say that 80% of productive, usable land in this country is under White control. Almost 80% in White hands. Let us assume that under own affairs this 80% will now fall under the hon the Minister who handles own affairs in the House of Assembly. It is no longer under a general affairs Minister and we will be more or less constrained to the existing group areas. For us to acquire more land will mean that we will have to beg that Minister under own affairs. He is obviously looking after the interests of his constituents and will look at White interests. I believe that this will militate against us, no matter how we believe it will help. The only advantage I can see to the hon the Minister under own affairs will be, that there may possibly be a public space in an already declared Indian area, which he might have the right to donate—I wonder who the donees will be—where he will have the right to sell or lease in those areas which are already declared Indian areas. I believe that we should move towards a completely new era. We should not go around supporting this type of legislation which, in the long term, will militate against us politically. Politically I think this will be wrong for us and practically I also see certain disadvantages, because we will be strait jacketed within our own areas.

I have already said that I do not wish to create acrimony across the floor, but I wish to appeal to the hon members to look at their own purpose for participating in this particular Chamber. Why have they come here? Did they come here to ensure that by participation they will remove the Group Areas Act? By participation they will give the Constitution of this country a mandate and change so that we may have a Constitution acceptable to the majority. Then we must not support legislation which, in effect, goes against that ideal.

Mr Chairman, I would like to place on record that there are certain people who adopt principles on matters relating to the provision of services in their areas depending on the company they keep. I question the hon member for Stanger. He cannot be true to the principles he has enunciated this afternoon, because I believe that he is playing a political game. He mentioned the way in which this Administration deals with land matters.

The hon member is hiding his own party’s inability to make progress. Firstly, he should examine why the electorate has turned its back on that party since 28 August 1984, despite this campaign regarding land deals. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I respectfully submit that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should confine himself to the Bill. [Interjections.] If he would like to conduct a debate on the issues surrounding his party and mine, we can hold an open debate in this House. I am prepared to take him on here and in public. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Stanger is bankrupt insofar as arguments against this Bill are concerned. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that that side of the House is merely putting on a public show. I hope the hon member for Stanger realises what is happening in his electoral division. That hon member must decide whether he wants to be a member of Parliament or an estate agent.

I am an estate agent. What about it?

He must draw a distinction.

What does that have to do with the issue?

He must draw a distinction because he is a public servant. That is why the hon member for Stanger is continually standing up in this House and clouding the issue. It is because of his own ineptitude to make any progress in the party political arena. However, he should not come here and say that he is opposed to this. There are deficiencies. There are discrepancies which have an effect on the day to day matters affecting the various communities in this country.

I want to say that there are even some deficiencies in our Housing Development Act. If we come here to effect some improvements, does that mean that we are entrenching own affairs?

Tell them who your donees are going to be.

That is the common cry. Let that cry ring throughout South Africa when next there is an election.

Even when one holds an election for an own affairs House, is that not entrenching own affairs? They cry in unison that certain own affairs Minister’s do not have sufficient responsibility. We are, however, gaining responsibility in order to be of service to our communities, and if one were to be purist about it—since the hon member for Stanger is so sure of himself insofar as own affairs are concerned—then every time he asks an own affairs Minister for services in his constituency, he is entrenching own affairs. He is promoting apartheid, the Group Areas Act and own affairs.

I want to state on record here that this nonsense about land matters is part of an election campaign. It is a preparatory move aimed at providing material for them to fill their election manifestos. We have not stood up here and made allegations. The hon member for Stanger has moved a private member’s motion and we hope—because the type of attitude we adopt inside this House affects the image of the House outside—that the hon member for Stanger realises that we shall have an open debate on these matters.

Appoint a commission!

The hon member for Stanger advanced that as one of his reasons for objecting to this Bill. However, I want to say that this is a cleverly orchestrated campaign to continually needle us, and that in 1988 it is coming only from the hon member for Stanger.

We are not a one-man band; you are a one-man band.

I want to suggest to the hon member for Stanger that he should go to his constituency and find out from the rank and file what they think of allocations in his constituency. I am not casting any aspersions but I still want to suggest to the hon member for Stanger that there are certain people behind the scenes who are manipulating matters on the North Coast. I am not casting any aspersions on the hon member for Stanger but I think that if one is going to look at allocations one should first ensure that one’s own house is in order. [Interjections.]

We are not prepared to bow down to the level of making preparations for election campaigns. (Interjections.) The hon member for Stanger will probably clear himself.

Mr Chairman, this is a progressive measure. It puts right a deficiency. If anybody in this House wants to be a purist and feels strongly about own affairs, he should not sit here. This is a progressive step and I do not think one should adopt an ideological attitude towards it. That is why we gave consideration to it and are supporting this measure. We are satisfied that we are not supporting the entrenchment of apartheid. There are deficiencies and I know that there are many own affairs responsibilities which are creating problems. I support the hon member for Stanger in that we should one day have one Minister. However, as long as we are carrying the responsibility, we must look at the practical problems and not split hairs over these things. Therefore, this side of the House has given very careful consideration to this. There are practical problems, and this Bill, in the context in which we are placed, means progress.

Mr Chairman, I have been listening very carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and I must say to him, with respect, that I cannot understand why he took off in the manner he did against the hon member for Stanger. If I understood the arguments advanced by the hon member for Stanger, I believe he was concerned about the fact that this particular Bill gives powers to the hon the State President so as to delegate authority to own affairs Ministers insofar as land allocation is concerned. I think if the hon member was more forthright in his argument he would have said that his main objection to this Bill really turns on the question of having confidence in the hon Ministers concerned, and more particularly in the hon Minister of this House.

I believe that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is in fact the Minister concerned, ought to have addressed that problem. I do not want to belabour the point again, as all hon members of this House are aware that the dignity and the integrity of this House has been assaulted by the allegations and the counterallegations that have been raised inside and outside this House concerning land allocation precisely. I believe there is a tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is also the hon the Minister of Housing, to address that point. The only way to do this is to bring it under the full scrutiny of the public spotlight. [Interjections.] As all hon members are aware, the only way to do this is to address it by way of a full-scale judicial commission of inquiry. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has accepted the fact that there should be a full-scale judicial commission of inquiry. What I cannot understand is why, after having accepted that basic principle, he is now afraid to implement it.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member what his comment is if a particular hon member of this House deliberately and continually hides behind parliamentary protection and boasts that he is prepared to repeat allegations outside the House, but in spite of challenges remains stubborn and is afraid of a commission of inquiry.

My honest reply to that question would be that if that were true then the institution of the commission of inquiry would in fact highlight that. If that hon Minister believes that some evidence is being withheld then I think the only way to bring the matter into the public arena is by way of a commission of inquiry.

Do not hide behind an informer and a post-box.

I do not want to engage in this kind of banter across the floor with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council because I believe it serves no purpose.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member why he did not respond to two statements that I made in this House, namely: What about a particular individual who has the habit of planning the liquidation of building contractors? A person committed suicide because of his losses. Secondly, what about the missing documents relating to special votes in the hon member’s constituency?

The only reason why I have not reacted to those wild statements made by the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council is simply because I am not aware of all these things. Perhaps the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows more about these things than I do. If that is the case, he has a duty to this House and to his office to take all those matters to the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

The documents vanished!

I want to warn the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that it is an offence for any person even though he may be a Minister, if he is aware of any crime having been committed not to go to the Police with that information. He is in fact then guilty of the crime.

The documents vanished!

I would suggest to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that if he is in possession of certain information—and he obviously is—then he should go to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. [Interjections.]

Let us look at this matter very calmly. I believe that if we are to raise the dignity of this House and if we are to address matters that I believe are of tremendous public concern in the community from which I and all hon members of this House come, we must have the commission of inquiry. I believe only people who are afraid of something that they do not wish to disclose to the public will not support the institution of a commission of inquiry. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that I will not take any further questions from him because he is wasting my time and the time of this House.

It is because you are afraid!

Order! I would prevail upon the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to give the hon member for Springfield a chance to continue his speech without interjections.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted for the protection afforded me by the Chair.

I look the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council right in the eyes across this floor and I want to say to him that if he has nothing to hide he should now ask for a commission of inquiry to be instituted. If he were to do that I believe it would go a long way in satisfying the problems that the hon member for Stanger has regarding this particular Bill. I want to ask the hon the Minister who is piloting this Bill before this House to take this very message back to the Cabinet from which he came. I am asking him to inform the hon the State President of what the feelings of this House are.

The feelings of a few defeatists!

Mr Chairman, in supporting this Bill I wish to point out that I think the Opposition is bankrupt with regard to any policy whatsoever. They are absolutely lost. It is no wonder that they do not know what they are talking about or what they are doing. [Interjections.]

Besides, if they want an inquiry it is easy for them to get one. They must simply get an affidavit outside and they will automatically get an inquiry. However, they have not got one and they are only trying to bluff the public. They are only trying to pull the leg of the public. They think that the Indian community is childish. But I think they will now be shown that this kind of thuggery does not appeal to them.

It is so simple and easy: One gets an affidavit and one gets an inquiry. They have not got anything, they are bankrupt. They are merely trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public by repeatedly calling for a commission of inquiry. Surely there must be something else to do in this House.

They talk about the Group Areas Act and about not participating. But if they are not participating why are they here? They must go home and sleep and not be in this House. If the Official Opposition wants to prove its sincerity with regard to the Group Areas Act let them resign and get out of here. Then the public will say that they are sincere and honest. [Interjections.]

They oppose the Group Areas Act but do not want to participate in this. Surely that is not the right way to put up a case. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I respectfully submit that I am being relatively polite with the hon member because of his age but he has been indulging in rather unparliamentary expressions and I do not think that is necessary. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Durban Bay withdraw any unparliamentary remarks made by him.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw them. I am sorry to say that on the spur of the moment because of their bankruptcy I could not find any other word, but I am indeed sorry for having used that word. I have the fullest confidence in this House.

Supposing tomorrow the Opposition formed the majority and was sitting on this side of the House what would they do to this Bill? Why are they fighting for power? They are going all out to defeat this side of the House so that they can be the majority party tomorrow. There must be something in it. They must stop their plagiarism. I want to quote something from a book:

All four of them died. This is what would happen if the Opposition came into power.

I fully support this Bill and have the fullest confidence in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We have to have confidence in somebody and as the only one who is the head of this House we must have confidence in him. The House of Representatives has confidence in the hon Rev Hendrickse.

The House of Assembly will have confidence in their own Minister. Why should we not have confidence in our Minister? [Interjections.] I think it is power politics; it is dangerous politics. We must not try and bluff the community; we must treat them with respect. We are treating the community with disrespect by bluffing them, and this type of thing must stop in the future.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have the right to say what we want to say, as long as we say it with respect. We have the right to disagree and to oppose. Whether the argument has any weight or whether it is merely an emotional argument, nobody can detract us from the stand that we take on this side of the House.

Although it is going to continue, it is unfortunate that every debate in this House will provide somebody on this side or on the other side with some opportunity to refer to some or other aspect of the cloud that has been hanging over this House. That is why I have pleaded, with dignity and with respect, to the Chair and to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, that if there is nothing to hide, let us … [Interjections.]

Last Wednesday did you say: “Repeat it outside the House”? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, one of the appeals that I want to make to you, is that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has no right to continuously interfere with the right of hon members to express a point of view. We are not barking; we are not animals. We are presenting a case as best as we can. I think we should be treated with the same respect that is accorded to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He spoke for more than two hours in the presence of the hon the State President and nobody interjected.

I think one must also accept that in a Parliament…

I think you are wrong in saying that I spoke for two hours in the presence of the hon the State President. [Interjections.] I was continuously interrupted for one hour.

Mr Chairman, all I am saying is that I have always accorded to the office of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council the respect that it deserves. I do not think that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can point a finger at me. I might disagree with him on certain matters. However, we accord to that office the respect that it deserves.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a question?

Order! Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition prepared to take a question?

Mr Chairman, I am not answering any questions.

All we are asking, is that we bring to an end this impasse that is continuously clouding the more important issues that are before this House.

I want to refer to the hon member for Durban Bay. I know that he speaks from a tremendous amount of experience. If he tells any story about thieves, one can bet that there are certain facts attached to that. [Interjections.] I always say that I should like to hear the hon member for Durban Bay speak more often in this House, because he is a highly experienced individual and a man who has spent many years in business. There are matters which I have debated here in respect of which he can make a positive contribution.

However, except for supporting the Bill all the other things that he has said count for nothing on this side of the House. One cannot give somebody, whoever it is, blind loyalty. Blind loyalty is not given to the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, it is not given to the hon the State President. They have a democratic process and questions can be raised. We are aware of commissions that have been appointed and which have examined and brought out reports on certain matters.

All I am asking is that we bring this impasse to an end. If there is nothing that we are afraid of, let us have this commission of inquiry and draw the curtain over it once and for all.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the Bill. In doing so I do not wish to cross swords with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. However, I must state here that we require the same protection that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council asked for, namely that if an allegation is made here, the hon member who has made this allegation must be able to repeat it and prove it outside. Now, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has repeatedly done the same thing. When the hon member for Lenasia East made that allegation last week, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was quick to retort that he should repeat that allegation outside. In doing so, he became quite worked up. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I am not taking any questions at this stage.

What I want to state is that there seems to be a grand plan by members of the Opposition. It is that whenever a member speaks, they keep harping on this commission of inquiry. Why should it go on like this? Corruption only exists in their minds; the public is not calling for it. [Interjections.] I am specifically referring to inquiries into land deals on State land.

It is the prerogative of the State President to appoint such a commission of enquiry. If they are so convinced that there is a need for a commission for inquiry, why do they not articulate their request to the State President? How can we ask for an inquiry into ourselves?

Go and read the Constitution.

They have to provide the proof, and the State President will appoint it. [Interjections.] The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has subjected himself to a police inquiry that is under way. If the hon member for Reservoir Hills had substantial facts, he should have produced them there and then.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was also quick to react when mention was made of land transactions in Richards Bay. We will prevail upon hon members not to make these allegations if they cannot prove them outside. Similarly, in the same vein I shall ask for other allegations not to be repeated here if they cannot be repeated outside. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon members must have noted that the Chairman of our component on the standing committee is unavoidably absent. This is why there was no speaker from this side to kick off the debate. We want to wish the hon member for Newholme Godspeed in this very difficult hour. His wife is lying in a coma in a city hospital …

We associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed.

… hence his absence from the House.

I have taken note of the arguments advanced by hon members, but I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that although one may perhaps not agree with what he had to say, I want to assure him that I will defend to the death his right to say it.

The hon member for Stanger, in stating that he is opposed to this Bill, used as an argument the fact that this entrenches own affairs even further. I think the hon member for Stanger should cast his mind back to the year 1986, I think it was, when there was a measure which had more or less the same implications namely the division of the assets of the old Community Development Board.

We shared the same feelings.

I think that at that time the hon member for Stanger, because there was a coalition Ministers’ Council, found it feasible to support that measure. [Interjections.] I reminded hon members at that time of the danger of supporting that particular measure.

In the year 1988 we were at a point three and a half years after the actual implementation of the Constitution of 1983.

One will note from the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister on this particular Bill, which was held in one of the other Houses, that an anomaly currently exists as a result of the provisions of the 1983 Constitution. I must tell hon members of some of the practical problems that we are experiencing. I am sure hon members on that side of the House are aware of the fact that we are all opposed to the tricameral system per se. [Interjections.] However, we are willing to participate in it to the extent that we may improve the lot of our people and of all the people of this country. One must remember, though, that if those hon members had been sitting on this side of the House and if that coalition was still in existence, then I can assure this House that the hon member for Stanger would not have come up with this type of argument.

Do not be so sure.

I am sure of my facts, because the hon member did not adopt a similar stance on a matter which, I believe, was far more serious than the one which we have at hand at the moment.

You walked out of the Chamber and you did not vote then, not so?

Mr Chairman, I placed my reservations before the House. They are recorded in Hansard and it is a pity that I did not have the time to obtain that particular Hansard for this debate. I could have quoted it to the hon member. I believe that what is before us now, is of less consequence if measured against what was supported by that side of the House some while ago.

Mr Chairman, whilst the hon member refers to an earlier decision of support from this side of the House, and whilst I may not agree with everything he says, may I grant it to him for the moment that he is correct in stating that it was wrong of us to have supported it then? However, if it was wrong then, would it now be right to do what was wrong then?

Very slippery.

During the course of my speech in the no-confidence debate last week, I made great play of the Afrikaans saying: “’n Perd wat trek kan nie skop nie en ’n perd wat skop kan nie trek nie.” The hon member must realize that this side of the House is charged with the responsibility of administration of certain departments, in the course of which problems will arise. Some problems may have to do with lack of legislation or with inadequate legislation. In this particular instance it has been found that the current legislation is inadequate in order to give the Ministers, who have to discharge certain responsibilities, the necessary power to be able to act in terms of the Statute.

I agree with the hon member for Stanger that the hon the State President, in terms of the State Land Disposal Act of 1961, is charged with the responsibility where he may sell, exchange, donate or lease State land. With the advent of an own affairs Minister who will be charged with similar responsibilities it is necessary for that particular Minister to be able to have the necessary legislative backing. In this instance I am not interested in the particular person who will discharge this responsibility. That is not at stake here. It might well be that the hon member for Stanger decides to hop across this floor and he may one of these days become the Minister who has to carry out these responsibilities. [Interjections.] I am speaking hypothetically, but these are possibilities.

I should like to give hon members a particular example of a problem we have in the Transvaal. There is a particular town in which the land has been proclaimed an Indian group area.

Villa Liza.

No, not Villa Liza; Liza Villa! [Interjections.] This particular land was proclaimed an Indian group area way back in the 60s but it is still held by the local municipality. It is held by our people in terms of a leasehold agreement and now a new area has been created in the same town. This land is owned by the local municipality although it is a proclaimed Indian group area.

The difficulty we are now experiencing is that the municipality is waiting for the day when all the residents have moved out so that it can, in terms of the leasehold agreement, lay claim to the improvements that have been effected by our people there and virtually obtain those improvements from our people without compensating them. We believe that with a measure like this, this is one of those areas that are giving us problems at the moment that can be addressed. I feel certain that hon members on that side of the House would not like to see a lifetime of savings which has been built up in this particular area in the form of bricks and mortar, go to the dogs as it were, but that they would rather see our people being adequately compensated for what they have built up through hard earned money and blood, sweat and tears. I believe this type of measure would do exactly what is desired, and that is to address this type of problem.

I have taken note of the fact that the hon member for Stanger has once again made use of this particular Second Reading debate on a specific measure in an effort to attack the administration. I believe there are sufficient avenues available through which he may give effect to that which he wishes to put into operation. I, for one, believe that those avenues should be utilised rather than making play with the same old thing. Eventually the hon member for Stanger will begin to believe the things he is hearing all over the show, and I think this is basically the sickness from which he suffers. Certain things are being said, and when one tells oneself something too many times, one begins to believe something which, to my mind, may have been manufactured. I do not know whether it was manufactured in the cane fields of the North Coast or in the sugar mills of the North Coast, but whatever the case may be, what the hon member for Stanger has been implying this afternoon is not as sweet as what comes from that part of the world. [Interjections.]

Therefore, Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support this Bill and we wish to emphasise that we do not view it as a measure which further entrenches the whole concept of own affairs and the division of the entire cake. What we see this as, is an enabling measure in order to address existing anomalies so that at the end of the day, our people may be given a fairer deal.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Abram referred to my abilities, and he is entitled to his opinion. I would defend his right to say what he wants to say. However, may I ask him how much of the land he thinks is going to fall under own affairs and to what extent this will benefit the Indian community?

Mr Chairman, it stands to reason that as things are in the country at the moment there is an anomaly. We are not going to have a major portion of the surface area of this country.

I accept that. It is not that I agree with it, but I accept it. It is unfortunately a hard reality that there is discrimination in this country. No one can defend it. However, discrimination will remain. I want to tell that hon member that I have my ear to the ground in the province where I come from, and that considering the sort of progress—if one can call it that—the conservative, right wing parties are making in the country among the White electorate, I have the impression that discrimination is going to be with us for much longer than one would have anticipated.

However, hon members on that side of the House must not make it more difficult. I would rather have limited reform by responsible people who want to bring about reform, than to have no reform at all and total stagnation. Those are the choices facing us. I concede that we will have power over very limited land, but however limited it may be, we do have a responsibility to our people. The case in point which I have cited to hon members on the other side involves an investment by our people running into millions of rands. I believe that this will in the interim help to address this sort of problem. One of the reasons why hon members on that side as well as on this side of the House chose to be here, is to try and see in what way we can address the problems confronting our people in the short term by bringing relief in the immediate future. Of course we also have long-term goals and we do address them from time to time, but one should not be obsessed with the end product and neglect what happens along the way. It is what happens along the way that will eventually lead one to the end product. We have to address the present-day difficulties confronting our people.

Mr Chairman, hon members must admit that it is very difficult to give meaningful answers to the debate this afternoon. It has been very interesting, but it seems to me that we were dealing with political affairs and not land affairs. I am afraid that I do not want to get involved in internal political arguments. Therefore I would like to reply very briefly.

The hon member for Stanger gave various reasons why he does not support this Bill. Firstly, the concept of own affairs is part of our Constitution at present, within which all three Houses are functioning. If the hon member has any difficulty with the concept of own affairs as such, I will advise him to address the Constitution Act when the opportunity arises. Secondly, the Group Areas Act cannot be dealt with under this Bill. Thirdly, the hon member raised the problem of agricultural land. I am quite sure he knows that a committee has been appointed by the hon the State President to look into the matter of more agricultural land for Indian people.

I would like to thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who replied very effectively to political statements made by the hon member for Stanger and other hon members. I thank him for his support.

The hon members for Springfield, Red Hill and Moorcross raised political arguments to which I do not want to reply.

The hon member for Durban Bay and the hon nominated member supported the Bill.

In conclusion I would like to thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we support this amendment which came about at the request of both the SA Council for Town and Regional Planners and the SA Council for Professional Land Surveyors and Technical Surveyors. The provision is made that a professional land surveyor may perform township planning work 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.

As it stands, it is illegal for a person who is not registered as a town planner to hold himself as a town and regional planner. This measure resolves the issue and we support it from this side.

Mr Chairman, this particular Bill tries to bring about some sort of arrangement between the various parties involved in this particular field of profession. I think this sort of arrangement has recently been taken too far and is becoming a burden on the public. The Government is assisting them to form a trade union by virtue of which they fix the price and nobody will do any work for anybody at a lower price than the one agreed to between themselves. I think this has gone too far in this country and people are paying very dearly for such arrangements.

I think some measure should be contained in the Bill stating that although they may become a party to the arrangement, they should remain free to charge any fee that they wish by arrangement. This gives some bargaining power. Say a surveyor had to survey a property for R500 and somebody came along and cut the price by R100 to R400. He will then be ostracised and he will pick up many problems. This makes it difficult to bargain and to get the work done at a fair price. There must be some sort of protection for the public. This Bill now gives the professional people an open hand to organise themselves. They now have a sharp knife in their hands with which to cut the throats of the people who need their services. I feel the public should be protected in some way.

Recently the architects were discussing a bargaining price. Before that, architects would quote you something and there was nothing that you could do about it. Recently however, there has been some competition and I think that is a healthy sign.

We are now talking about free enterprise, but this Bill does not mean free enterprise. It is actually more of a strangulation of persons who need their service. I think it is dangerous and very costly.

I often have to go to the surveyors or town planners. Some of them are hungry for money and they charge one to the extent that it hurts one. However, one cannot blame them because this sort of arrangement gives them a hold on the public and they can do what they like.

In the absence of the hon member for Newholme, I too wish to air our support for this particular Bill. The principle that we have always followed has been that any measure which comes before the standing committees should be a measure which carries the support of the particular discipline that it is going to serve. In this particular instance this is so.

*Mr Chairman, I actually felt very happy that I could glean the wisdom of the hon member for Durban Bay and could hear what he had to say here this afternoon.

It is a fact that when certain disciplines organise themselves as is the case with urban and regional planners, they in fact have a council to do so. The same applies to professional surveyors. They also have a council. This then leads to a situation where there is no opportunity to negotiate fees.

†Here I want to agree with the member for Durban Bay that we are again creating a kind of monopolistic situation. However, I am pleased that this particular measure does not place any inhibitions on a land surveyor who may as a sideline, have studied a bit of townplanning and who could be consulted by someone to do a townplanning operation. This again is in line with our policy of support for the small man, for that man in the community who has a small piece of land which he wishes to subdivide, redevelop or replan. He could then call upon the services—not of the big names in the business—also of the small names in this business.

We do hope that the operation of the measure will be of such a nature that the small man in this industry will still be able to market his skills and that his services will still be available to those who wish to use them.

We have no hesitation in supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Redhill for his support. As far as the other two hon members are concerned, let me say that a township planner and his client is free to agree on the price of his service. The same applies to the land surveyors, architects and other surveyors.

I think the hon member is afraid of losing this bargaining power but I do not think this is the case. I would like to thank the hon member for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, in keeping with the tradition of Parliament, I rise to support this non-controversial Bill. At the same time I want to place on record my thanks to the people who have supported me to become a member of this esteemed House.

In serving my community in particular and the country in general I believe that my participation in Parliament will be a contributory factor and at the same time will enhance the participation of the Official Opposition.

I am pleased to note that remuneration is introduced in the Forest Amendment Bill. In line with sane thinking people on the side of the opposition, I want to say that we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House would like to congratulate the hon member Mr Razak on his maiden speech. I cannot guarantee to him that he would be getting the same passage that he got this afternoon.

I accept that.

I want to tell the hon member that this is a very interesting place and that at times things can get out of hand as well. One has to be prepared for all eventualities.

I could have given the hon member some advice, but unfortunately I do not have the quotation before me. Nevertheless, it happened in the 18th century when a young Briton became a member of the House of Commons. He received a letter from his father reminding him that one should remember that being elected to Parliament does not mean that one has achieved something for oneself. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Havenside should be the last one to interrupt me. [Interjections.] The hon member must not talk of conscience. [Interjections.]

You are a double-sided person …

The hon member for Havenside also skipped parties.

Mr Chairman, I believe the term “double-sided” is unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, what I in fact meant by “double-sided”, is that he has been moving from that side to this side, and that is “double-sided”. There is nothing wrong with that.

What about you?

I have been sitting on this side for four years.

Mr Chairman, I will forgive the hon member, because what he sees in me really is what he himself is. [Interjections.]

I just want to finish by saying that this particular father told his son that he should remember that the main object of going to Parliament is to be a servant of his people and his country. That is what I would like to wish that hon member. It is sensible and fatherly advice which the hon member for Havenside does not appreciate. Unfortunately, he lacks the capacity to appreciate it.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

I am not prepared to answer any questions.

This particular measure before us is supported by this side of the House. It is an improvement on the existing measure. Forestry and the need to look after the environment is extremely important.

I do not know what hon members know about the activities of voluntary organisations which assist in this particular field of endeavour. I think it would be appropriate if I do pay tribute to the Dendrological Society and the Dendrological Foundation for the role which they play in this field.

Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon member Mr Razak on the occasion of making his maiden speech. I do not wish to get embroiled in the exchanges which took place between the hon member Mr Abram and the hon member for Havenside, except that I wish to make the observation that when some hon members get tickled, they cannot stomach it. [Interjections.]

When dealing with regulations of control relating to forests, one may be misunderstood. This would depend on the country in whose parliament one is passing such a Bill. I had the occasion of visiting Paris where, if one mentions the forests, one is disliked. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless, we welcome the change in the constitution of the Forestry Council. It was not the introduction of the tricameral Parliament, but the late Prime Minister B J Vorster’s slow programme of constitutional changes which announced the Government’s new policy of mixing statutory boards, commissions and councils. I would like to mention that there are many members of our community who may make a contribution in these structures on the strength of their qualifications. We do not believe in window-dressing and we do not believe that one should show to the country or to the world that councils are mixed just for the sake of being mixed. I do know that my hon colleague, in the reconstitution of this Forestry Council, will take into consideration that members of our community can play a very valid role. This Bill is a non-controversial measure and this side of the House wholeheartedly supports it.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank both sides of the House for their support of this Bill and I thank especially the hon member Mr Razak. It was a very opportune moment for him to make his maiden speech, because this is really a non-controversial Bill and, as custom prescribes, one should not be controversial in one’s maiden speech. I thank him for his support and I wish him a very enjoyable stay in this House.

I thank the hon member Mr Abram for his support. It is indeed only a technical adjustment which we have here. However, it does improve the Bill.

Regarding the mixing of statutory councils I can tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that, if anyone of merit is suggested for a post on this council, I will certainly consider appointing him. As hon members can see, the council is to consist of six members representing the timber growers and six members representing the timber processors. Anyone of merit will be considered. I thank the House for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.