Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the Government’s struggle against socialism runs like a golden thread through the hon the State President’s opening address at the opening of Parliament on 5 February. In this context a Chinese philosopher once said that the world consisted of opposites. The world does indeed consist of opposites. We have rich and poor. We have the privileged and underprivileged. Then we also have those who pay and those who receive.

Those who have to pay tax want value for the money they spend. What is more, they want more than they have paid for in tax. Over and above that, the truth of the matter is that what the distribution of wealth comes down to is the distribution of poverty.

Where do you get that from?

If we take increasingly more from the rich in order to satisfy the ever-increasing pressure for social services, etc, furnished by the State, we are going to turn our State into an impoverished State.

So you are opposed to pensions for the aged?

No, I am not opposed to pensions for the aged.

But that is what you have just said. Yours is a party for the wealthy.

No, I am not opposed to that. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance dealt extensively with these steps already being taken by the State in this specific context. As far as that is concerned, let us remind ourselves of the story of the fish and of the fact that it is no use giving someone a fish when he is hungry, because if the wealthy have to give all the poor fish to eat each day, they will become poorer by the day until they end up standing in line waiting for some fish. That is why taxpayers’ money must be employed very circumspectly, because it is hard-earned money.

If one looks at the steps the Government has already announced in pursuing the struggle against socialism further, one can only appeal to a number of bodies to render assistance. We can ask our local authorities whether so many of the services they furnish cannot be given over to private initiative which can furnish those services at cheaper rates. We could ask the trade unions to be very careful with their demands in 1988 because they run the risk of destroying their employers and concomitantly their job opportunities.

Let us put a stop to the increasing pressure on the State for more and better services. Let us bring our production closer to our wages. Let us buy South African. Let us all pull together and, in the words of the late President John F Kennedy, adapted as follows: Let us see, for once, what we can do for South Africa instead of what we can get from South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Hercules said the taxpayers wanted to see what their money was used for—it should be used productively to their advantage. I want to ask the hon member what he thought when on 5 February he sat in the new Chamber which forms part of a programme that cost R32 million to complete. If he were an official who was not going to get an increase this year, and he realised that that Chamber was going to be used once a week at most for the present, would he consider, in view of the cost of that Chamber, that this would satisfy South Africa’s taxpayers?

The hon member for Roodeplaat made a very interesting speech yesterday. He was almost shying away from by-elections on behalf of the NP. He does not really like by-elections much anymore. [Interjections.] That is how democracy has worked over the centuries. These are the occasions on which parties’ policies are weighed up against one another and the voters give their interim verdict during the period between general elections. When the NP was still an NP, and not a “realistic” party, they used to relish byelections.

Think of Wakkerstroom I and II, Hottentots-Holland in 1947, Oudtshoorn in 1972, Caledon and Vereeniging for example. These were not unproductive or counter-productive occasions. By-elections are what bring governments to a fall. Wakkerstroom brought the Government to a fall twice. [Interjections.] The imminent byelections may bring this paralysed Government to a fall as well. [Interjections.]

What is behind the thoughts expressed by that hon member? He conceded defeat in anticipation by implying that the NP had already lost in those three constituencies. [Interjections.] He also demonstrated something that is very dangerous, however, something that also was illustrated by what the hon member for Vasco said yesterday, viz that a debate of this kind was no longer necessary. Last week’s no-confidence debate was an open political debate; now we are having another one. He wants this eliminated from the system as well, because the NP is becoming increasingly impatient with regard to democracy and Parliament as part of the legislative authority. [Interjections.] Everything is moving towards executive authority; Parliament merely has to place its seal on the decisions of the executive authority. [Interjections.]

The NP delights in the fact that the Constitution has been drawn up in such a way that when we come into power, we shall not, according to them, be able to implement the will of the people within the provisions of the Constitution. I think that is enough in connection with the hon member for Roodeplaat, however.

I also want to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Winburg, and I want to thank him for his fine contribution. He set an example for his colleagues on that side of the House by putting his party’s standpoint without making personal attacks or being petty in any way. He invoked the commendable statements contained in the Preamble to the Constitution and said they were the principles of the NP. This was in reply to the second part of the amendment moved by the hon member for Barberton. There are a few things he must remember, however. This Constitution was drawn up before there was any question of Black participation in the decision-making and executive processes, at a time when the hon the Minister of National Education still said the following, for example (Hansard, House of Assembly: 30 March 1982, col 3862-3864):

He went on:

Order! There is a loud undertone of conversation that is making it difficult for me to hear everything clearly. I request hon members to lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

These very meaningful words followed:

He used the words “vision of the future”—

These are the aspects of NP policy for which we reproach them.

Then one reads the following in the Preamble to the Constitution:

Does that hon member regard Schedule 1 of the Constitution’s exposition as full expression of a people’s right of self-determination? Everything that is done in terms of Schedule 1 to the Constitution is subject to a general law which is made by representatives of two other peoples. Does he regard that as the self-determination he believes in in terms of the Preamble to the Constitution?

That is not possible.

Here we have a very interesting statement made by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the own affairs House of Assembly as reported in Die Burger on 18 February 1988:

That is a general department. Is that self-determination? We have to go down on bended knees to the Minister of a general affairs department for money to educate our own children. Is that self-determination? Is that part of the commendable section in the Preamble to the Constitution to which reference was made?

There is also talk of the elimination of domination. That is our main accusation against the Government. How does one eliminate domination? How does one comply with the divergent demands of heterogeneous groups in a unitary state with reference to traditional living-space, for example?

Listen to what the hon the Minister of Home Affairs said a few days ago.

It is a case of comme ci, comme ca when he goes on to say the following:

It is a case, therefore, of open, but not open. That is typical of the old United Party in which those hon members are so much at home. There they are—all still members of the old UP which had one policy for the urban and another for the rural areas [Interjections.]

I am pleased to see the hon the Minister of Home Affairs in the House. The following report appeared in the Sunday Tribune on 28 November 1982:

The hon the Minister was still Administrator of Natal at the time—

There was talk here of open beaches, therefore. Open! [Interjections.] His representatives on Natal’s Executive Committee repeated only the other day—I do not know what the problems with the Natal municipalities are—that the beaches were open.

That is what happens when one sacrifices one’s principles and starts becoming a Realpolitik party. Right at the outset the Government made the blatant mistake of all mistakes by including only Coloureds and Indians in the dispensation. I have with me a paper that was delivered by Dr Chris de Kock in Potchefstroom on 15 August 1986. He is a sociological expert at the HSRC’s Institute for Sociological and Demographic Research.

He delivered a very learned address in Potchefstroom and this was one of his findings:

One has heard during the past few weeks, since the opening address by the hon the State President, as well as in the advertisements to the taxpayer, which the taxpayer has to pay for, that one can bring about further constitutional reform only once social and economic reform have taken place. Nothing is further from the truth, however. Opinion polls were taken, and this learned doctor referred to these polls. He said:

A total of 60% of the respondents felt this way, Sir. He went on:

He made the following very interesting finding:

In a unitary state, economic and social reform do not form a breeding-ground for social constitutional reform, therefore. The contrary is true. Non-White incomes, housing, education and recreation have improved, in most respects more quickly than in the case of the Whites, but this has led to increasing dissatisfaction and unrest. In spite of this, violence has taken hold, and even the improvements that have been made over the years have been destroyed. One cannot live by bread alone. The NP labours under the misconception that nationalism is not important, and that it can be suppressed across national boundaries by ties of class, profession and income. That is not the case. A people’s spiritual inclination to control its state and maintain its religion, language, literature, history and survival without being restricted, causes it to fight any threat to the bitter end.

If one thinks one is safe while one has power, and that power begins to affect one’s strength of will, a conquered people loses confidence in its own identity and sinks back into a torpor of disconsolate despair. These are the important aspects of NP policy. That part of the principles to which the hon member for Winburg referred, which is not imbued with a clear policy of where the NP is leading South Africa, is leading South Africa into a situation in which the people no longer have confidence in their identity, and are sinking back into a torpor of disconsolate despair.

Mr Chairman, it is frequently stated that droughts are endemic to South Africa, and that is true. One drought has hardly been broken, when the next one is upon us. The drought in agriculture has scarcely been broken, when a new drought here in the House of Assembly of South Africa is upon us, ie a drought when it comes to criticism of the Government’s economic policy. I shall come back to that at a later stage.

There is something else I want to refer to before turning my attention to the economy, and that is the reply the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition gave to an invitation to a TV debate with the hon the Leader of the House. [Interjections.] I think I am correct in saying that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s problem can be expressed in what has become a stock English expression: “TV or not TV”. When one examines the excuses advanced by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to indicate why he cannot take part in such a debate, one raises one’s hands in disbelief.

What was his first reason? He said that if, in the TV debate, there were to be a repetition of the kind of speech the hon the Leader of the House made, he would rather not enter into such a debate. One can understand that. I read the hon the Leader of the House’s speech during the no-confidence debate carefully, and in that speech I can find nothing which is derogatory or objectionable or gives any impression whatsoever of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition having been treated discourteously. What is true, in point of fact, is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was given a political drubbing which he found difficult to come to terms with.

Hear, hear!

There is another excuse. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said he was so busy that he did not know whether he could make time for such a TV debate. According to him a Leader of the Official Opposition must be busier than a Minister and a Leader of a House. Therefore he had no time to prepare for such a debate. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, however, why he needs time to prepare for such a debate. He is the alternative State President. He ought therefore to know his party’s policy, without needing time to prepare himself. I think that the truth of the matter is this: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is afraid of holding the debate before 2 March because he is afraid that he will get the same political drubbing that he got in the no-confidence debate.

Hear, hear!

All the wonderful political speeches made here this afternoon …

You are the “man” from Kuruman!

I want to thank the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition very sincerely for the compliment. Let him place that in quotation marks. I can assure him that I shall continue to be that man! [Interjections.]

All these wonderful speeches could have been incorporated in a TV debate, with statements of policy and with one policy being weighed up against another. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, however, knows there is too much at stake for both himself and the CP.

Even if they were to retain all three seats in the by-elections … [Interjections] … what difference would this make to their numerical strength as at 6 May? They would have precisely the same number of representatives they started with on 6 May. The danger, however, is that they could lose one or more of these seats, and then they would have fewer representatives than they started with on 6 May. That is what they fear.

With regard to the speech by the Official Opposition’s spokesman on finance, let me tell him that one wonders what arguments the hon the Minister of Finance actually has to reply to when he does furnish his reply to this debate. The opposition speakers—I think there have been five of them so far—virtually all began by merely referring to the economy and then switching to the political side of the issue. They fell back on that as a result of the fact that they could not advance sufficient critical arguments on the Government’s economic policy.

If one examines the amendment moved by the hon member for Barberton, one sees that in the first point the Government is criticised for overspending. That is also the only economic leg of this amendment of the hon member for Barberton. He says the State is overspending, particularly in the sphere of public consumption, and that the State is not able to control the overspending.

I want to ask the hon member whether he is professing that overspending could have been combated in the past and in fact, as he has indicated, amongst other things by not supplementing the deficits in the Budget by way of loans. I could not quite follow that argument of his. It sounded to me as if he wanted to say that overspending should be combated so that the deficit after budgeting was not again supplemented by way of loans. One would very much like to have the Official Opposition’s precise attitude to that placed on record because it is important.

In conclusion the hon member ventured certain predictions concerning the amounts that would be requested in the Additional Appropriation. He indicated that these amounts would be considerable, as has been the case in the past. I do not know how certain he is of that statement in the light of the Government’s declared policy of budgetary saving and discipline. Does he think the hon the Minister of Finance would make such statements lightly? Does he think the hon the State President’s statements were made lightly? I do not know what lies ahead in the budget. I do not know what the Additional Appropriation looks like, but following the general trend of thought in regard to Government policy, I think there are quite a few surprises in store for the hon member for Barberton and his party in the coming budgets.

In his amendment he advanced a second argument, which is a political one, by accusing the Government of supposedly not clearly spelling out a policy and not having a mandate to do what it is, in fact, doing. A little more than nine months ago, on 6 May, the Government received a mandate, and it is in the process of carrying out that mandate, in spite of the obstacles placed in its path by the Official Opposition. The Government will carry out that mandate to the letter.

†I want to come now to the hon member for Yeoville. He is not a bad parliamentarian or a bad debater. He has one ability and that is that he has mastered the art of levelling accusations at the Government and at their actions coupled with his own interpretation of the motives behind those actions.

I think, for example, that he was very disappointed at the brevity of the speech of the hon the Minister of Finance. He was looking for something to attack and some subjects to discuss, but there was nothing for him.

[Inaudible.]

He referred to the previous Part Appropriation and he said that the hon the Minister had named a lot of measures to be taken under the Part Appropriation Bill. By implication he was telling us that if we had measures like that, at least we would have debating points. [Interjections.] That was what the hon member implied.

He also implied that certain concessions were made to the electorate to try to woo the votes of the electorate of South Africa for the NP.

That is correct.

He says that is correct. I am glad we are ad idem so far. The hon member is a good economist and he knows very well that there were absolutely abnormal conditions of sluggishness in the economy at that time.

You know that is nonsense.

He also knows that these sluggish conditions could only be remedied by fiscal stimulation. He also knows that the next budget was due only early in June.

You are very naughty, you know that!

Did he expect the hon the Minister to wait until the month of June before stimulating the economy during a period of sluggishness?

If you are a shrewd politician …

How do the fiscal authorities address problems like this? Is the usual way to do it not by means of a reduction in the level of tax, the early repayment of loan levies and increases in pensions and Public Service salaries?

What about now?

That was the most amazing statement the hon member made yesterday. He said that now that there is no election, the Government is not prepared to give those stimulants to the economy. I want to tell the hon member that three by-elections are going to be held and therefore concessions in the Part Appropriation Bill could very well have won one or more of those by-elections for this Government. [Interjections.] He knows that, but the trouble with him and his party is that they are completely out of the political marketplace. [Interjections.] They are not bidding for votes anymore, because they are sitting on the sidelines. They are no longer an opposition party. They are on the periphery and looking in. They are no more than mere spectators.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Unfortunately my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am glad the hon member for Kuruman referred to ideas such as a drought and “sluggishness”, because that is specifically part of the theme I want to discuss today.

At the beginning of every Parliamentary session and, probably at the beginning of each political year, many of us, as politicians, are asked by journalists, academics, diplomats and other political commentators what our expectations for the year are. We are asked, in particular, what we think the hon the State President would say in his opening address and what legislation and plans are envisaged.

At the beginning of this year the question was put to me, once more, and my reaction was—this time I was correct—that I could not actually see the hon the State President coming to light with anything to generate any reaction, spontaneity or excitement other than economic measures, because there simply was nothing else he could offer. I happened to be correct.

In his address at the opening of Parliament the hon the State President devoted two sentences to the question of constitutional development in South Africa. To whatever party one may belong, and whatever political views one may hold, everyone knows that constitutional development is a top-priority item on the political agenda in South Africa. The hon the State President nevertheless devoted only two short sentences to that. Firstly he made the indisputable, but largely unnecessary, remark that change in this area should take place in an “evolutionary manner”. I say that that was unnecessary because we all agreed on that score.

Secondly he said that “during this session and thereafter we shall accordingly proceed with the measures which already have been announced and which are under consideration”, without in any way telling us in detail what the Government had in mind. I find it particularly illuminating that the hon the State President did not say one word about the position of the National Statutory Council. I think it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that that council’s existence is in difficulties. We know that the Bill dealing with that aspect is before a Standing Committee at present. We have heard that evidence is being gathered. We have an idea about what is going on there, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that that council is beset with problems, at least in the form in which the Government envisaged it and with the aims it has for that council.

It is, of course, not difficult to understand why the hon the State President is silent on that issue; why he fails to speak of that council in any exciting, stimulating or inspiring terms. It is clear that there are few Black political leaders with any credibility who are interested in taking their seats on that council. Even the leaders of national states who are in no way regarded as being radical and who have in fact proved to be accommodating in their political approach and strategy, who have given proof that they would make a great effort to co-operate with the Government in order to bring about development in South Africa—even they, with few exceptions, see no value in participating in this envisaged council. The mere fact that they are participating in structures one-sidedly created for them in the homelands shows indisputably that they are prepared to be accommodating.

So one now wonders how many members of the Government itself still see that council as part and parcel of their political agenda. It is common knowledge that there are different currents of thoughts within Government circles, and I would very much like to know how many of those people see the National Statutory Council as a viable body that can help with the solving of our problems.

I do not think there is any indication that the Government really has a vision as far as that is concerned. That is what the hon member for Kuruman said, something I want to react to. If one really wants to talk about a drought, there is a drought in regard to the plans and the vision on the part of the Government. There is nothing whatsoever that the Government can offer us in this regard.

Talk about the Kalahari!

Talk about political apathy! It is simply unthinkable that in any other sphere there can be as much apathy as there specifically is in this sphere. [Interjections.] As a member of an opposition party one could, of course, gloat about this lack of direction and lack of planning on the part of the Government. One could try to score some political points because of that situation. I nevertheless feel a sense of desperation about the future development of this country when I take note of what is taking place and what is not taking place in this context.

†Mr Chairman, the Government has an impressive record of failure in relation to the issue of Black political rights. The political battle-field in this country is strewn with the skeletons of structures proposed by the Government for this very purpose—consultative bodies, representative bodies and combinations of both these types of bodies. In recent years we have had the proposed Black Council, which was supposed to function on a par with the President’s Council. It died a very sudden death. We have seen extended Cabinet committees meeting perhaps three or four times before being disbanded. We have also seen other structures suggested by the Government— all of which have amounted to none other than the so-called national council in different guises and under different names. That has been the case for the past three or four years.

Mr Chairman, I want to state that I am indeed extremely pessimistic about the Government’s possible success with any initiative in this regard because their attitude is not correct and they do not show sufficient sincerity in relation to this very burning issue affecting the future of South Africa. I only want to advance three fundamental reasons for my saying this. There are three important considerations which, I believe, stand in the way of success in this very important area.

First of all, Sir, there is a climate of oppression prevailing in the country, and particularly in Black politics. This is obviously owing to the application of the emergency regulations and to the plethora of other oppressive legislation. It hampers political activity and it interferes with the process of opinion-forming and of the spreading of political information. We actually have a situation in which it is often a policeman who decides what kind of political activity is to be allowed or not. It is no longer this House that has the final say in matters of this nature. It is not even a Cabinet Minister. Very often it is a policeman whose training or experience does not equip him to take that kind of decision. It is a policeman who decides what kind of political activity is to be allowed or not.

The unpleasant truth is that the Government detains more Black leaders than they talk with.

Quite right! [Interjections.]

In these circumstances, Sir, can they expect a coherent and a positive response to any political initiative upon which they embark in this respect?

The second reason I wish to advance is the following. The Government remains unwilling to unban political organisations and to release political leaders the Government itself has banned and imprisoned, and of course also those political leaders imprisoned by the courts. The Government also refuses to negotiate with them, even when they are willing to compromise on the question of violence. We know that the issue of violence has often been put forward as a condition for negotiation or non-negotiation. The Government has clearly shown that it remains unwilling to negotiate, even when those organisations are prepared to compromise. It is clear to me that the Government has not shown bona fides in its attitude to the Eminent Persons’ Group’s initiative in 1986, and it is equally clear to me that since then they have gone out of their way to make it impossible for negotiations to take place with those organisations and those leaders at any later stage. They have elevated this to a situation in which it is close to high treason if anyone even considers speaking with those organisations or leaders. They know full well that even in their own ranks there are many people who are not ad idem on that issue.

The third reason is that the Government is clearly unwilling itself to accept a future political dispensation in which it does not retain a dominant constitutional position. They would like Black participation for reasons of legitimacy, that is obvious. That is what they try to obtain. However, they will not share power on a truly equal basis. Blacks are therefore expected to participate in Government structures and in the government of this country on the basis of being inferior. In such circumstances the Government must surely know that any Black leader is at great risk in dealing with the Government at all. I ask whether there is no awareness of and no concern for the fate of Black leaders who in the past have tried to co-operate with the Government, who have tried to compromise. Is there no concern at the terrible fate many of those Black leaders have suffered at the hands of their own followers because the Government has let them down time and time again?

I believe, Sir, that unless and until these three fundamental issues—there may be more of them—are dealt with effectively by the Government, scepticism and failure will be the consequence of any efforts the Government makes in this sphere.

Mr Chairman, it was interesting to hear the hon member for Green Point referring to skeletons and post-mortems and so forth and I must say that in some respects he reminds me of an undertaker when I look at him! Whilst on the subject I just want to remind him that many of his own colleagues were very anxious to dissect his own party and its leader even before rigor mortis had properly set in. [Interjections.] Perhaps before long they will have the need and the opportunity to do just that and it may even help them in their politics in the future.

I would have preferred to restrict myself this afternoon to rather more constructive remarks— which I had intended doing—more appropriate to the discussion of an appropriation Bill. However, we in Natal are at the moment having to deal with a specific problem and phenomenon. I am referring to the phenomenon of the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba and, more specifically, a so-called information campaign which is being conducted by the paid organisers of the Indaba and which I think approximates more to what I want to call a disinformation campaign.

As recently as today we have seen in the Press the latest instalment in this Indaba propaganda exercise by way of specially designed opinion surveys and which I feel calls for brief comment. I also believe, however, that we as a party in Natal will have to deal in more detail with this matter in future because the intention with it is to create confusion and to sow doubt in people’s minds.

Let me give an example. Let us take the following question. [Interjections.] I should like hon members of the PFP to contain themselves and to try to listen objectively to what I have to say—if that is possible. Let us take the following question:

Sir, a question like that in any survey is in my view meaningless and simplistic. It is typical of the superficial manner in which the entire survey exercise has been dealt with, and we in the NP in Natal reject that survey and its results out of hand. The object of the whole propaganda campaign of this Indaba office for a period of nearly two years now has been to reach the point where the word “indaba” itself, as distinct from the Indaba proposals, has only positive connotations, and can be used to imply any number of things. In fact, it may mean totally different things to different people.

Even the NP has expressed itself in favour of the Indaba-concept to the extent that that means negotiation. However, coming back to the survey, to pose questions in the manner to which I have just referred is fatuous, and any response thereto is politically totally irrelevant.

We regard this as a rather clumsy attempt to create a bandwagon atmosphere in respect of the forthcoming municipal elections, and it is ironic to note that, specifically in respect of the effect of the Indaba proposals on local government in Natal, the otherwise voluble Indaba organisers have remained strangely and suspiciously silent.

The fact of the matter is that the Bill of Rights agreed to by the Indaba in 1986 has very serious implications for local government in Natal, and I have been told that the committee which was established to consider local government proposals had, up to February last year, met only once or twice and not made any recommendations known or even published a report.

It should also be pointed out that as early as November 1986, even before the final Indaba proposals were accepted, the important and representative Natal Municipal Association decided to change the status of its delegation from participant to observer, specifically as a result of the direction in which the indaba had begun to move.

If the Indaba office and its organisers know what is good for them, they will take my advice and keep their noses and their mischief-making out of the municipal elections in Natal. [Interjections.]

In closing I would like to remain in Natal but to refer briefly to another topic, namely the NRP. [Interjections.] I am sorry the hon member for Mooi River is not here this afternoon, but I am sure what I say will be conveyed to him. The leaders of what is left of that party, including Mr Derek Watterson of Natal, are going to face a serious test of political leadership when their party’s federal congress meets in a few weeks’ time. Most of us will agree that the NRP and before it the UP produced many fine members of this House, many of whom are still here today sitting in Government benches, even the front benches, like the illustrious hon member for Kuruman who made another excellent speech here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

I want to urge those who remain in the NRP, however, to allow their once proud party, which has played its role and made its contribution, to die with dignity. They know, as we do, that the NRP is moribund and suffering from terminal irrelevancy in the present political scene. The leaders of that party should beware of the political body-snatchers who are now singing the praises of the NRP for opportunistic reasons after hardly being able to hide their contempt for it in the past.

Now that there is so much talk of the NRP being swallowed up by Dr Denis Worrall, I would like to remind people like the hon member for Mooi River of the words of his fellow Natalian and NRP stalwart Mr Derek Watterson who said in September last year, fewer than five months ago, that he had great reservations about the so-called Independents’ ability to do the job. He doubted there would be much satisfaction for those who wished to keep the NRP going in the hope that the Independent Movement would get off the ground. Mr Watterson said that if the NRP was to be kept going, it had to be kept going as the NRP.

The fact of the matter is, however, that it cannot be kept going, and he and others like him should not waste time by following the leader of the NRP Mr Bill Sutton. People who supported the NRP in the past should now seriously consider their position and rather throw their weight behind our hon State President and support him and the NP in our efforts to build a better South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to give the hon member for Kuruman the assurance that the television debate will take place, and when it does, he will discover what a drought his own party is experiencing. [Interjections.]

The Afrikaner people voted the NP into power in 1948 with the injunction that they should restore and preserve the Afrikaners’ interests and future in South Africa. [Interjections.] The NP of that time complied with that injunction and the mandate it had received from the people to ensure the future of the Afrikaners.

In their brochure entitled “Vrugte vir die Nasionale Bewind” that was published at the time, they said the NP’s foundation-stones were that it was in favour of the preservation and stabilisation of White civilisation in South Africa.

That is why the NP Government adopted apartheid legislation which would serve as foundation-stones for the preservation of White civilisation in South Africa. [Interjections.] Those were the foundation-stones the NP of the time prided itself on.

During that period the NP proudly announced that it had faithfully complied with the injunction of the people and the mandate the people had given it and had placed certain laws on the Statute Book, such as Section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

The NP was proud of its work and, boasting that it had complied with the wishes of the people, proudly referred to the fruits of the NP reign.

What has become of those foundation-stones of the preservation of White civilisation in South Africa? Let us look at those fruits of the NP reign today. Yes, let us see what those fruits have come to look like since the NP has taken the downward course, the highway to integration, by accepting the policy of power-sharing with the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks.

Let us look at what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says about the fruits of the NP reign of 1988. Let us look at the election manifesto of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in which he boasts with the withered, liberalised integration fruits of the NP. In this manifesto the hon the Minister mentions full property rights for Blacks, the abolition of influx control and 34 associated measures, the repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, the throwing open of central business areas, the restoration of one South African citizenship, uniform identity documents for everyone, the establishment of mixed regional services councils, the establishment of mixed provincial government systems and the establishment of a joint executive authority for Natal and KwaZulu. These are the fruits of the NP reign today. [Interjections.]

Yes, one by one the NP has removed the foundation-stones which served to preserve White civilisation in South Africa. The NP of that time, driven on by Afrikaner nationalism, said that despite fierce opposition, the Government was implementing the NP’s policy of apartheid and embodying it in legislation. The NP of that time, which still had the interests of the Whites in South Africa at heart, said the people would have to ensure that that extremely urgent work was not undone by a subsequent Government.

But then the hon the State President’s NP Government came and removed these foundation-stones. We can justifiably say, therefore, that the NP removed those foundation-stones which were once its pride and joy, and that that is why the NP stands for the contempt of White civilisation in South Africa in 1988. That is why the NP abolished the apartheid laws it was once proud of, and once regarded as the foundation-stones for the preservation of White civilisation in South Africa. The NP is no longer faithful to the people that voted it into power.

Consequently the voters will reject the NP on 2 March 1988 with the contempt it deserves, because the voters of Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton refuse to join the NP in partaking of the bitter, withered, liberalised integration fruits of the NP … [Interjections.] …which hold no future for the Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

There was also the boast of the hon the State President in the newspapers, at the expense of the taxpayers, of course, about the fruits of the NP reign during 1988. He said:

Yes, the hon the State President boasted about this, but let us take a look at the fruits of the NP reign in 1988. Let us look at these fruits that have taken the place of the fruits of the old NP.

In the first place the Influx Control Act and other associated Acts were abolished by the NP Government, and we now find that squatting has increased to uncontrollable levels. We find that Whites are being ousted by non-Whites. We find that crime has increased tremendously. There is no peace in the country. Elderly White persons are being murdered almost on a daily basis. Unsuspecting rugby spectators are being assaulted or murdered in cold blood at Ellis Park. There is no peace or prosperity in the country. Bankruptcies and unemployment have increased.

The leader of the NP inherited a sound and solvent estate from his predecessor, but technically speaking, South Africa’s estate is bankrupt today. The hon the State President says we should tighten our belts. We must control Government spending and tackle inflation. The hon the State President says we must tighten our belts, but the White farmers in South Africa, the White workers, teachers, public servants and other workers in the country have been tightening their belts for the past 10 years. The Whites’ financial position has simply deteriorated during the past 10 years. In 1980 the Whites paid a total of R1,9 billion in tax in contrast with the R10,25 billion in 1987. [Interjections.] The Whites cannot tighten their belts any further.

The Government has turned its back on the White farmers in South Africa, on the White workers, teachers, public servants and other workers, and that is why the hon the State President expects the Whites to be the ones to make the sacrifice once again.

In addition the hon the State President said we should control Government spending. With all due respect it is all very well for him to talk! The hon the State President said Government spending should be controlled, and just to show how serious he was about this, he spent the taxpayers’ money on this senseless advertisement in last weekend’s Sunday newspapers. [Interjections.] Is that how one controls Government spending? The hon the State President said Government spending should be controlled and we should tighten our belts, but the Government spent almost R32 million inter alia on building this new, adjoining parliamentary building. Is that how one controls Government spending?

The hon the State President went on to say we must tackle inflation, but the dogma of equality that the NP believes in is one of the greatest causes of inflation in South Africa. After all, the Government is geared to narrowing and eliminating the so-called wage gap, whether productivity comes into the picture or not.

Let us see what the President’s Council’s report says about this. According to this report, the President’s Council found that the average real remuneration of Black workers in 1984 was 99,1% higher than in 1970, but this increase in earnings exceeded the increase in productivity. Yes, although Black workers earned 99,1% more in 1984 than in 1970, productivity increased by only 15,9%. The sting of inflation is therefore inherent in the policy of the NP itself.

A further cause of inflation which can also be blamed directly on the NP Government can be found in the NP’s policy of the redistribution of wealth. Let us look at what the president of the AHI said in his presidential address last year:

He went on to say:

That is the Whites—

The Whites cannot tighten their belts any further. The White teachers have a backlog of 11% in respect of the rest of the Government sector and a backlog of 30% in respect of the private sector. Yet the NP Government expects the teachers, who work with the future of the Whites and with tomorrow’s leaders in South Africa, to tighten their belts. Their belts have already been tightened as far as is possible; they cannot be tightened any further. The sting of inflation is inherent in NP policy. Let us go further. The hon the State President said:

At the same time the hon the State President released the communist Mbeki, while young White men were fighting communism on our borders and, like the four young White men this week, dying in the process. That is proof of how “strong” and “effective” the Government really is in combating communism which is causing chaos in the country. The hon the State President also said:

With all due respect, this side of the House says that the Government’s policy is the cause of the financial crisis in South Africa, and the White voters refuse to make any further sacrifices in favour of and as a result of the fruits of the 1988 NP reign.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition warned me to stop talking about the AWB. To tell the truth, the tone of his voice made it sound like a threat. In his absence I want to ask the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Barberton, to convey this message to his leader.

I am also a member of the Afrikaner people—it is my people too—and I have an obligation to my people to warn them against this alien organisation with its alien ideology. The Afrikanerdom I belong to does not advocate this kind of ideology. This makes one wonder whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has ever read the AWB’s programme of principles. If he were here this afternoon, I could have asked him, but I do not think he would answer me in any case.

He is rather busy.

Just as he is too busy to take part in a TV debate.

I wonder whether he has read, and whether the hon member for Barberton knows, that the AWB advocates a one-party dictatorship in its programme of principles. I say a one-party dictatorship is absolutely alien to the Afrikaner. That is the one thing the Afrikaners have been fighting for many years and centuries. The Afrikaner has always believed in true democracy, a multi-party democracy.

If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has read the AWB’s programme of principles he will have seen that the AWB says that when it comes into power, it will deprive certain White Afrikaners in this country of their rights.

Only members of the AWB will have political rights. That is an alien idea! I wonder whether the hon member for Barberton has read what the AWB’s programme of principles says about their economic policy. It is a policy of Afrikaner socialism, of nationalisation and confiscation. It is alien to Afrikaners. The Afrikaner people I belong to has never been in favour of these economic principles.

I wonder whether the hon member for Barberton knows what the AWB’s education policy is. Their programme of principles states that their education policy is based on human glorification and the idolatry of a people. The Afrikaner people I belong to has never believed in this kind of policy or ideology. Does the hon member for Barberton know that the AWB’s language policy is that South Africa should have only one official language? It has never been the standpoint of the NP and of Afrikaners to have only Afrikaans as an official language.

I want to mention another important point. I read in the newspaper that the AWB was distributing a new programme of principles, and I made enquiries in order to get such a programme of principles. I received a letter from the AWB’s head office in which they said they would not give me one. I also received a letter from the organiser of the AWB in Bloemfontein in which he said it was a confidential document which could be made available only to registered members of the AWB.

You are going to get five! [Interjections.]

If it is a confidential document and we are not allowed to see what it says, I suspect that this new programme of principles contains far worse things than the old one. I wonder if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has read this new programme of principles. I want to know whether he rejects this policy of the AWB, because this is the kind of question that he has to answer. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is well-known for answering the wrong questions. He does not answer the questions one puts to him, but others. I want to know what he says about the AWB’s policy.

The hon member who has just resumed his seat is a member of the AWB’s Grand Council, or whatever they like to call it, and he also signed an application for membership. Before one becomes a member of the AWB, one has to sign one’s endorsement of the AWB’s programme of principles and their constitution. One therefore has to say that one will adhere to this Afrikaner socialism, one-party dictatorship and a policy of one language for South Africa. In addition, according to newspaper reports, numerous members who stood as candidates for the Official Opposition and the HNP had to sign an undertaking that if they were successful, they would convey the AWB’s policy in the caucus of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] There are a few hon members in the caucus who not only are open about their membership of the AWB and promised to advocate the AWB’s principles, but who also signed this undertaking to convey the AWB’s policy in the caucus of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition told me we should stop talking about the AWB because it was merely a cultural organisation. Is that what a cultural organisation’s programme of principles looks like? [Interjections.]

I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to tell me whether he approves of the AWB’s intolerance. He said we compared the AWB with a terrorist organisation. I want to quote to hon members from a recent letter written by an AWB member in Bloemfontein which was published in Die Volksblad of 3 February 1988. He said:

That was what someone said on 3 February 1988!

I can hear a pin dropping!

Yet the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tells us that these people of the AWB are not intolerant!

He says we should not compare them with people who want to perpetrate violence, because that is not the kind of people they are. I want to know whether an organisation such as the AWB is merely being a little robust in saying the leader of the NP in the Transvaal will not speak and that the AWB’s policy and ideology must be heard. Are they not being intolerant if Die Volksblad’s building is to be burnt down and Beeld’s reporters are kept away from Press conferences and other occasions on which the AWB is active? Is that the kind of thing a mere cultural organisation says?

We are getting the shivers.

No, I do not think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition really knows what is going on in his party, because initially he said there were only two AWB members. A few days ago, however, an hon member who is also a member of the Grand Council or the Main Council of the AWB said there were three AWB members in the CP.

They are hatching. One hatched out.

I saw an AWB bulletin which was distributed in December 1987. The first report was written by none other than the leader of the AWB, Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche, and was accompanied by a photograph of him. He said:

[Interjections.] He said this in December, yet the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says there are only two members. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said they were a cultural organisation, but let us a take a look at what none other than the leader of the organisation had to say. In reviewing 1987 he said:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition told us this was a cultural organisation and that the CP were the ones to contend with, but he does not know who he has in his caucus. The surrogate leader—that is what he was—of the right-wing radical party has in fact become the hijacked leader of the right-wing radical separatist movement, because the AWB is in favour of secession or separatism. They are no longer in favour of separation, which is partition, but of secession. They have changed their views from partition to separatism. Hon members can go and read the Third Reading speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition last year. He did not use the word “partition” once, but he used the word “secession” four times. The Official Opposition has swallowed the AWB’s political policy and the leader of that party rises in this House to advocate the objectives of the AWB that has paralysed his party.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition still has an opportunity this year to display his leadership. He can take the earliest possible opportunity to get up in this House to reject the AWB and its objectives in the interests of the Afrikaner people. In the interests of my people, I appeal to him to do so.

Mr Chairman, I find myself in the very rare position of rising after an NP member and being able to say that I agree with everything he said. [Interjections.] If he needs any help from this side of the House, the party I represent fully supports him in this indictment of the AWB, and I hope the NP will deal with this organisation in due course.

The hon member for Sasolburg will forgive me if I do not react to his speech any further, because I want to devote my attention today to a letter, to doctors, to a hospital and to patients and their grievances. [Interjections.]

†The letter appeared in the South African Medical Journal on 4 September 1987. This letter was signed by 101 doctors working at the Baragwanath Hospital. The letter concerned working conditions and patient care at this hospital. In their letter these doctors expressed their concern about their working conditions and the conditions in which the patients had to be treated at the Baragwanath Hospital. They used very strong language, viz “that the state of affairs is inhuman”.

These are the conditions prevailing in a teaching hospital, the biggest hospital in the southern hemisphere. “The state of affairs is inhuman”; “Facilities are completely inadequate”; “Overcrowding is horrendous”. These are the expressions used.

I am very pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister is present. The hon the Minister could not be present, and I accept the fact that he had to be elsewhere. I would like to ask hon members, the hon the Deputy Minister and other doctors here today whether they have been to Baragwanath Hospital to see the truth of these statements regarding conditions which are totally unacceptable at a teaching hospital for medical care, especially in the department of internal medicine.

Let us look at a few facts which cannot be disproved. Wards are overflowing—patients are lying under beds and sitting on chairs. That is a fact. Secondly, this hospital is understaffed. Thirdly, these doctors have to devote their attention to a patient load that is totally unacceptable to the medical profession. I would like to refer the hon the Deputy Minister to the SA Medical Council regulation 25(2) which states:

What is happening at this hospital? These poor doctors have to attend to 35 and even up to 60 short-term patients. They have to crawl around beneath the beds to find the patients. They have to look around the hospital to find these patients. These are the conditions they have to work under.

Quite often these doctors have to do 30-hour shifts, two to three times a week, because there is not enough staff to deal with the number of patients. These were the accusations in their letter, accusations which have been substantiated by the Faculty of Medicine at Wits and by an editorial in the South African Medical Journal, by other organisations such as the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa, and by other senior doctors.

I would like to turn my attention now to the hon the Minister of Finance. In 1980, eight years ago, Prof Shamroth wrote a letter complaining about the conditions of medical care at the Baragwanath Hospital. The hon the Minister of Finance can tell me whether I am right or wrong, but the Cabinet knew about it, at least in 1985, if not before that. What is the reason these people put forward for the state of affairs at, not only the Baragwanath Hospital, but also the Coronation Hospital, Hillbrow Hospital and the King Edward VIII Hospital? There is a tremendous increase in the need for medical care for Blacks, but the main reason they advance is a lack of money. Money has not become available. The programme of hospital building, staffing and facilities is falling behind. The result of all this is that overcrowding, a lack of doctors and overworked doctors lead to unnecessary mistakes by the doctors. The unnecessary mistakes, in turn, lead to complications and deaths. The doctors at the Baragwanath Hospital will admit that patients are dying as a result of a lack of time to attend to these patients.

What was the response of the provincial authority in the Transvaal, the hon the Minister of Finance and the Department of Health when this letter appeared in the South African Medical Journal? Their first reaction was to threaten the future medical careers of the doctors who signed the letter.

It is a disgrace!

In December, six of the interns were refused appointments to permanent positions. These doctors, who expressed their concern about being able to do their work as doctors should—and the hon the Minister will agree with me that that is in fact the duty of a doctor—were threatened.

They were refused permanent appointments. Six of them instituted Supreme Court action and were granted the right to be heard. They subsequently—after their case had been heard—received letters informing them they had not been permanently appointed because they were unsuitable for the job. No further reasons were given. Why were they found unsuitable? Simply because they had written this letter. They were recommended by the faculty but because they had written this letter they were unjustly penalised because they had shown concern for their patients.

The next step followed. Forty of them were summoned to Baragwanath and asked to sign a letter of apology drafted by the provincial authorities. I admit that they were mistaken in some of the statements they had made in their original letter. They expressed themselves very strongly, for example where they said the authorities were inhuman. They also made certain statements in relation to a Pretoria Hospital which caters mostly for Whites. I will accept that they made mistakes. This does not, however, detract from their most important accusation that the available facilities were not suitable for proper patient care.

Now, Sir, we see in the Press that they have been given a week’s respite before they will apparently be dismissed. I should like to ask the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Deputy Minister of National Health please to have the letter of apology those doctors had to sign cancelled immediately. This is my first request. I believe it will not do any good to continue in the present vein.

Secondly, Sir, I should like to see those doctors reinstated and appointed on a permanent basis. I should like to see them given the opportunity of carrying on the careers to which they have dedicated themselves. Furthermore, Sir—this is my third request—I should like the provincial authority and the faculty of medicine at Witwatersrand University to meet immediately and look into this affair as a matter of urgency in order to reach some compromise which, I believe, is necessary, and also to investigate the facilities at the Baragwanath Hospital and the total health care of the Witwatersrand. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance, too, to attend such meeting because I believe that a lack of money for health care constitutes a major problem. My plea is that those doctors should not be penalised. If they are penalised—if they are dismissed—it will be harmful to the good name of medicine in South Africa. Punishing those doctors will not be any compensation to the provincial authorities.

The President of the World Medical Association is due to visit South Africa next week. Is that what the Government and the provincial authorities in this country want him to hear about South Africa? This will be used by other organisations in their attempts to discredit South Africa’s good name in the medical world. I appeal to the hon the Minister and his officials to withdraw that letter of apology. Those doctors have not committed a sin. If anybody has to apologise it is the hon the Minister of Finance, who never gives enough money to the departments of health and to Baragwanath Hospital. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown dedicated his speech to a matter that has received a quite lot of attention in the Press recently. It was given very wide coverage in the Press. The circumstances were such that there was a very good reason for this. I think the hon member for Parktown was justified in saying that doctors should stand up for their rights and the rights of their patients, and put their case. There is nothing wrong with that.

The hon member went on to talk about service conditions and about arrangements that were made between the employer and doctors at the Baragwanath Hospital. Of course, this House cannot give an opinion about that at the moment.

After all, it is a matter of conditions of service between two groups—an employer and certain employees—and it is the employer’s prerogative to determine whether or not those employees acted within the limits of certain conditions of service. The hon member for Parktown has every right to talk about the Baragwanath Hospital. No one can deny him that right. Besides, it is a good thing for him to do so.

But the Government is their employer!

I understand that he also visited Baragwanath. I think that was his duty; he had to go. I am pleased that he is concerned about the situation, but I can tell him that we are just as concerned about the situation at the Baragwanath Hospital. We are also concerned about certain conditions elsewhere in the country. The hon member has every right to point out problem areas here and to talk about certain aspects that require urgent attention.

I do want to make an appeal to him, however, but first I want to ask him whether he is a member of the Medical Association of South Africa. [Interjections.] Well then, in that case I understand why he spoke in that way.

I am a doctor.

There is an organisation known as Namda. They are the people who are organising themselves against the Medical Association of South Africa. I appeal to the hon member, when the President of the World Medical Association comes here, to tell him something else too. After all, there is another side to the coin and the hon member can emphasise that as well. Why do we never hear in this House, either in the discussion of our Votes or in other debates, about the phenomenal work being done by those same overworked doctors? I agree with the hon member that their workload is too heavy, but why does the hon member not praise them here and thank them for doing such exceptional work in those conditions? This also applies to King Edward VIII and all such places.

The hon member has no time for anything that is positive when he has a chance to speak. Why did he not tell the House that when he visited Baragwanath, he was very impressed by the nurses’ training college, for example? That is what he told the superintendent, but he will not say it here because it does not suit him to do so.

I shall do so next time.

Nor did he tell us that the conditions in which those nurses are living there are exceptional conditions. He did say this to the superintendent, and I want to appeal to him also to tell it to the President of the World Medical Association and show it to him. [Interjections.] He did not mention the exceptional new maternity facilities that were created at Baragwanath.

Worst of all is that he did not tell anyone that that not a single patient was turned away from the entrance to the Baragwanath Hospital. Everyone who goes there gets the necessary attention, even in the most difficult circumstances. Patients get the best antibiotics and if necessary, the best surgical treatment. There is a positive side to the matter and the hon member for Parktown should point that out as well.

I want to make a few points by way of general observations.

But answer the man.

The hon member for Yeoville is so eager for attention.

Do not talk nonsense; answer the man, because allegations have been made and you are not replying to them.

Order!

Sir, I intended to give my attention, very friendly attention, to the hon member for Yeoville under point 3 of the comments I want to make.

But answer him. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville something. When hon members of the Official Opposition, when they were talking about the sale of Government property, referred to White money and said nothing should go to Blacks, the hon member for Yeoville was very worried. I want to tell him that part of all the money that ends up in this country’s Treasury, whether it is collected by means of income tax or by the process of privatisation, will be spent—everyone must know this—on improving the quality of life of people in this country. This means that it will be spent inter alia on making medical services available and providing the necessary infrastructure. I hope the hon member feels a bit better after receiving my attention.

I want to give the House as well as the hon member for Parktown the assurance that we have first-hand information about the state of medical care in this country, and that there is excellent co-operation between provincial, Government, academic and other hospitals. There need be no concern about that. With regard to the hon member’s request that there should be discussions to investigate this whole issue, discussions have been arranged with the hon the Minister of Finance, especially with reference to the problem areas we have pointed out and which include the Baragwanath and King Edward VIII Hospitals.

We admit that conditions in some of those hospitals are wretched. That is not acceptable, but there are other factors which I shall point out later and which must be taken into consideration as well. The point is simply that we want to pay tribute to the people who render service there. We must also be very grateful, however, taking the limited funds at the disposal of the provincial authorities into account, for what is being done there to create a milieu and conditions in which such work can be rendered in the hospital context, even if the funds are lacking when compared with the need that exists.

Whether the problem is a shortage of nurses, beds that are not being utilised, Blacks who have to lie on floors in hospitals, the plans that have been announced to balance the provincial budget in respect of dispensing by Government hospitals, the fact that old equipment is not being replaced or that new equipment that has been applied for cannot be afforded, the Government is not indifferent or unwilling to do something about the problem. As the hon member rightly said, it is all a matter of money.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

I just want to finish discussing this point, Sir.

The hon member for Parktown would not understand that. People who have never governed do not know the size of the cake that has to be cut. They have no concept of what is involved. They forget that roads have to be built, that the country has to be defended and that salaries have to be adjusted. [Interjections.]

As far as the CP is concerned, as we heard in the speech of the hon member for Ventersdorp this afternoon, if there is even a suggestion of money being allocated for Blacks, that party regards it as part of the misappropriation process. The Government will do everything in its power to improve people’s quality of life. There is no question about it, and that includes the health aspects.

I want to raise one more point. The Baragwanath Hospital and King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban, as well as certain matters in connection with the Welkom Hospital, are receiving an A-priority. That is why the meeting requested by the hon member for Parktown has been arranged already. The hon the Minister of Finance will understand that there is such a thing as reasonable requests and demands. We cannot simply renew everything overnight. The people we are negotiating with, academics or whoever they may be, realise that there is a financial problem. In these difficult circumstances, however, we have learnt the true meaning of the word “priority”, and we shall honour it.

Mr Chairman, may I put my question now?

Order! No. The hon the Deputy Minister has already resumed his seat.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister indicated that it is the Government’s intention to uplift the quality of life of all South Africans and that is obviously an aim one can support.

When one looks at his particular responsibility in the area of health, however, the growing tendency towards privatization in the area of health does not suggest to me that it can enhance the quality of life of those who need it most among the poorer class.

Obviously, in the First World part of our society the health services will be more efficient once they are privatized, but what about the Third World component, the poverty-stricken ones? The present approach will not lead to any significant uplifting of the health situation in those areas.

The hon member for Hercules spoke about privatization and went as far as to say that services should be privatized at third-tier government as well. He asked members of trade unions to scale down their demands for wage increases as though the workers, or the poverty-stricken among our population, are in the same situation as we of the First World component are.

Five percent of the total population of South Africa owns 88% of the total personal wealth. The rest look at the whole question of privatization, free enterprise and capitalism through completely different glasses than the ones through which we of the First World sector look at it. One must understand that.

The hon member for Sasolburg spoke about “volksvreemde sosialisme”. It is not so alien. It depends on the position one finds oneself in. If one finds oneself in a position of poverty, where opportunities are not available, one will find socialism more attractive and one will be much more critical of capitalism.

I came across a very interesting excerpt from Die Volkshandel, which was the journal speaking for Afrikaans business in 1941. They articulated the view of the Afrikaner business sector in 1941, inter alia, as follows:

This was an understandable approach by a community which saw itself as disadvantaged. If we now ask the unions to adopt the same stringency and tighten their belts to the same extent as the First World business sector, the public servants and the MP’s should do, we are going too far and showing no understanding whatsoever for the tremendous gap between the haves and the havenots.

Reaganomics and Margaret Thatcher’s economic approach have become very popular—the so-called supply side economics.

Are you now discussing Gastrownomics?

I am talking about Thatchernomics. Those First World countries have been through decades of social upheaval and massive state investment in infrastructure and services. As a result they now find themselves with a very sophisticated infrastructure and system of services.

We are not in that position in South Africa. We have massive discrepancies between the 5% of our population, which owns and possesses 88% of the personal wealth, and the rest. We still need to invest massive amounts in infrastructure and services. That is why it is encouraging to read from the hon the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament that, whilst a portion of the proceeds from privatisation is going to be spent on the redemption of public debt, some of the proceeds are also going to be spent on basic infrastructure and services in developing areas and the creation of small business etc.

That is encouraging. It would be interesting to hear from the hon the Minister whether he can give us an indication of how seriously the State takes this aspect of investing in infrastructure and in services. The criticism that has come from unions and from other sources, including extra-parliamentary movements, towards the new package has to a large extent been based on a belief that the slice which will go towards investing in infrastructure and services is not really going to be any different from the proportion we have seen in the past.

That is the sort of assumption that is made. We want to know whether there is going to be a greater emphasis and whether more is going to be spent on those things.

Many people also believe that because one is now experiencing a higher growth rate—which will hopefully increase this year and next year—the poorer section of our population will therefore benefit directly from it and will be uplifted. There is a belief that the so-called trickle-down effect will result in the upliftment of all population groups, as long as we are going to have a strong growth rate.

There are studies which say that that is not going to happen and that in fact the opposite is going to happen, and that the gap between the haves and the have-nots is going to widen during the period of economic growth for as long as there is an oversupply of labour. Therefore, again the State’s responsibility in providing for the needs remains paramount. The State’s obligation to provide for education, health and housing remains paramount, which means that the State expenditure for those needs and services will inevitably have to be increased. To start a free enterprise, purist, capitalist cult of the type suggested by the hon member for Hercules is going to be counterproductive. In our society, with the discrepancies that we have, the State’s responsibility must always be emphasised. If the hon the Minister could give greater clarity as to what the State and his department intends to allocate towards those services in the future, it would assist in creating a more positive attitude towards the whole package.

Mr Chairman, I consider it an honour to follow the hon member for Durban Central, whom I have come to know as a dedicated politician. It is a pity he seeks his economic answers in the wrong philosophical approach, but I think if we continue to sit next to each other here he will eventually see the light.

I want to return to the Official Opposition. During 1980 I held a discussion with an American who was a friend of the former conservative presidential candidate, Senator Harry Goldwater. The conversation was inter alia concerned with the so-called Illuminati and the book None dare call it conspiracy, which I had received from an HNP friend of mine a short while ago. He assured me that one should not regard this book in a very serious light but, he then continued on a grave note, there were strong suspicions in America that a close relationship existed between this so-called far-right movement and the Communist Party. He said the reason for this was that these people were perpetually disparaging the capitalist system. In this way they created a vacuum and who was to fill it? Communism of course.

The other day as I was paging through the Patriot of 12 February this conversation came to mind again. The term “large conglomerates” often occurs in the Patriot. Every linguist knows that it has an exceptionally negative connotation. I read about the shift of Government loyalty from the workers to big business, the sell-out of the people’s assets, acquired riches which were being given away. The question arose: Whose “useful idiot” have the Patriot and the people so gaily bandying these arguments about become? That of communism or national-socialism?

If one discusses with CP members the reasons for their joining that party, various economic grounds such as droughts, failed harvests, ungranted agricultural credit loans and labour problems frequently emerge through the fog of ideology. One wonders whether it is not high time to apply a measure of privatisation to Government assistance such as the Agricultural Credit Board—however great the pity would be. It is regrettable that one voluntarily flogs the capitalist or free-market horse to death and then blames the Government for this.

There are political arguments, one of which is often raised from Official Opposition benches as well, that the NP has abandoned the way of separate development. This is a valid argument but to those who argue in this way I wish to say this afternoon that, as soon as the thought arises that their party could possibly come to power, they will have to start seeking a new political homeland immediately, because I state categorically that the CP will not progress further along the way of separate development than a strong, united NP could do over 30 years. I have two reasons for saying this.

In the first place the CP does not have the leader, and I say this with all the due respect due from a backbencher to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I do not believe the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is such a fundamentalist that he would lead his people to suicide—like the Jews at Masada. If he were to take over the helm I believe he would of necessity have to take the realities of this South African society into account. He would then be forced to a greater degree of pragmatism than he professes. He might claim to be incapable of this; he might prefer to leave it to an extraparliamentary power. Nevertheless I do not believe he would do this deliberately, as I know him.

In the second place the Official Opposition does not have the following to carry out the policy of partition. They would rejoice if the Official Opposition were to come to power and “clean up” Durban beaches and parks. They would begin grumbling, however, if they were unable to use those beaches because they had to do the work themselves or if additional national service obliged them to stay home more. To use a childish expression, they would start “dropping” their leaders once stringent conditions affected them personally.

I realise there are good members of the CP with firm principles—I probably know a few of those—but I also know far more whose principles are not so deeply rooted. Look around to where money is to be made; many CP supporters head the queue. I shall leave it at that.

We have two choices in South Africa, as Mr Clem Sunter so aptly indicated. We have to take the high road to make South Africa a winning country or the low road which will lead to increasing stagnation, impoverishment and escalating violence. We have a unique combination of natural resources, a favourable climate and a concentration of talent in this country. All we need is to use these elements constructively instead of destructively.

The NP believes it has the key to this. It is to be found in the hon the State President’s opening address which may be summarised as: Limited government; curbing of Government expenditure and devolution of power to grass-roots level—where everybody has to feel he can make a significant contribution to the improvement of his circumstances. Idealism must be created. We can build as many houses as we like, but this will be of no avail if we cannot cultivate idealism. Idealism is necessary—that motivating force to get to the top, to grow, to create, to view one’s handiwork with pride, to do more than one is paid for. That is the basis of growth in this country. We shall have to raise educational levels drastically and harness every technological aid to do this. Finally we shall have to market capitalism actively and vigorously.

I shall conclude by quoting Mr Marius de Waal:

Mr Chairman, a matter frequently alluded to has been that we on this side of the House ostensibly did not react much to the hon the State President’s opening address, but surely no one gets very excited about something he already knows. I want to make it clear that the CP would also like to combat inflation. That is the only way in which to do justice to the poor Whites in South Africa today.

We know that in 1976 a campaign was also launched to combat inflation. Workmen in South Africa—and I mean the White workmen—have made sacrifices from 1976 up to the present day in order to do their bit. The Whites have always obtained lower percentage increases than the Blacks, for example. Since then the Government itself has contributed very little towards combating inflation. We have heard about astronomic Government expenditure and of appeals having been made to the State to curtail its budget. Nothing happened. The biggest joke of all is that from 1976 until now, 1988, either an economist or some or other Minister has appealed to employers to show “constraint”, and when salary increases are being negotiated, these employers hide behind that defensive bulwark, and it is impossible to obtain improvements to conditions of service.

It has already been said that public servants are not going to receive an increase. The hon the Minister of Finance also said that so many people were going to receive notch adjustments that it would not, in point of fact, make any difference. Firstly, the notch adjustments are so meagre that those people are not even going to notice that they have received an increase. Secondly it was three years ago that public servants relinquished a third of their bonuses—a condition of service and therefore something they are entitled to —to combat inflation. In Die Transvaler of 8 February 1988 the following is stated:

Hon members have already heard that inflation can largely be ascribed to low productivity. This individual is not saying that one should tighten one’s belt and not grant any increases. He is saying that taxation should be reduced and productivity increased in order to crack down on inflation.

I want to make it clear that I am not an economist, but no company of mine has ever gone bankrupt. So I can do my arithmetic. [Interjections.] When there is no money in circulation, the economy cannot grow. When salaried workers are not drawing salaries, they cannot spend money. He also said that someone who earned R200 per month in 1960, should be earning R2 000 per month in 1988 in order to maintain the same standard of living.

He also stated that a trolley-load of food which cost R35 in 1960, now costs R400. Why is that, Sir? From 1976 up to the present day it has been the employees—the White employees, as has been proven here—who have tightened their belts, but big business and the owners of large chain stores have not taken any notice of that. When the railway workers receive a small increase, the prices of all commodities sky-rocket. When public servants or mine-workers subsequently receive an increase, precisely the same thing happens. They merely wait until some section or other of the population obtains an increase and then they increase prices. That is why food which cost R35 in 1960 now costs R400. That is how the Whites in South Africa have become impoverished. [Interjections.]

If we each want to do our share, we must make our contribution towards cracking down on inflation, but by merely talking, whilst in fact continuing with the present system, one is not going to achieve this goal. A few days ago we heard of two houses of R600 000 each for two Indian Ministers. It is said that one should keep one’s own house in order before one tries to put someone else’s house in order. “Charity begins at home,” they say. It is the hon the Minister of Finance’s duty to ensure that Government expenditure is decreased and that the White workers are given their share. I appeal to the hon the State President not to say that they are not allowed to receive any increases. Give these people an increase so that they can live, even if they are living on the breadline.

How much, Arrie?

Give them a 17% increase.

I want to return to last week’s no-confidence debate. Flagrant attacks were made on the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. People were hysterical and said all kinds of things. The hon member for Kuruman stood up, and out of the blue, delivered a sermon that every DR minister would envy. He asked us to maintain an acceptable standard of debate by acting in a manner befitting a Parliamentarian and not launching attacks. [Interjections.] A week later the hon member for Kuruman did precisely what he had denounced in his speech.

I had an opportunity of listening to the hon member for Sasolburg on four or five occasions. I said this last year, and I want to tell the hon member again that he devoted every speech he made the AWB. I do not know whether he gets the shakes when he hears about the AWB because he knows that without the HNP he would not be sitting here today. He knows that the HNP is a thing of the past, and after the next election he will no longer be sitting here. That is why he always brings the AWB into his speeches.

Then he says that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not know what he is cherishing in his bosom. They say: “Put thine hand into thy bosom and take it out, and, behold it will be leprous.” What is going on in the NP? What is going on there? In a debate the other day the hon the Minister of National Education told us that he did not read the newspapers. Quite possibly he did read about Club 22 which the hon the State President had to disband, Club 22 which included a senior Cabinet Minister on that side. When they do some soul-searching, they will see there is no peace even in their own ranks. The jealousy involved in the struggle about who will succeed the hon the State President is of such magnitude that they even have to form clubs now to see who the hon the State President’s successor is going to be.

Let us look at the “new Nats” sitting over there. Their proper place is with the hon member for Randburg.

You are a “new HNP”.

The statements being made are such that they really ought not to be welcome in the ranks of the NP, and if it had been 20, 15 or even 10 years ago, they would definitely not have been sitting on that side of the House. They would long since have been kicked out and would have found themselves with the hon member for Randburg. [Interjections.]

Order! No, there is too much of a running commentary here at the moment. The hon member may proceed.

Then we listened to the hon member for Innesdal. Unfortunately he is not here at the moment. We also listened to the hon member for Piketberg. If one looks at their speeches in last week’s no-confidence debate, one gets the impression that they cannot even feel at home in the PFP, the hon member for Randburg’s party or Dr Worrall’s party, which is still to be established. They are even more left-wing than those parties, but they sit in the NP and in this House. One of them is even a Minister, and then they make this kind of statement. Where are the days when the NP formed the cornerstone of the White people of South Africa? [Interjections.] Where are the days when the NP said it was a party for the workers? Sir, those days are long gone. That party is a party for capitalism. We no longer have the days when the ordinary workers gave half-a-crown, a shilling or a sixpence to support the NP financially. Now it is nothing but big business. That is the reason why they can tell the Government today how apartheid should be abolished and what other things should be done.

Yesterday Gavin Relly said it was time the world intervened in South Africa. Where are the days when the NP’s Ministers stood up and said: “Thus far and no further. You people are not going to prescribe to us what should be done in White South Africa. Meddle in your own affairs”?

A few months ago, when the hon the leader of the Official Opposition referred to America, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the State President almost bit our leader’s head off. Four months later, when Chancellor Strauss made his speech here, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he was our friend and that we could not believe America.

How is it possible that a person, who is dear to one’s heart today and with whom one cannot find any fault, can be accused of equivocation two months later? [Interjections.] I shall tell you how, Sir. It is because the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs allows himself to be led by the nose by America. If he had meant what he said, I am glad he has ultimately woken up to the fact and no longer believes America. I am glad if he now sees that it was America that plunged us into this mess we are in today.

I also hope that after 2 March, when we have the NP punch-drunk or out for the count… [Interjections.]… South Africa will come to its senses and the Government will realise that it is the Whites who brought the NP to this House. Of course the Whites brought the NP to this House to look after the interests of the Whites in White South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, someone once said that a politician was someone who acted with one eye on the next election, whilst a statesman was someone who acted with one eye on the interests of a succeeding generation.

Hear, hear!

Listening to the hon member for Carletonville, one is tempted to conclude that that hon member is not, in any way, a credit to the office held by a politician; that he says what he says merely with a view to the few by-elections to come.

Let us take note of a few things the hon member for Carletonville said. The hon member said, for example, that he was in favour of a 17% increase in the salaries of people in a certain sector. Why did the hon member say that? Does the hon member not know that in his own party there are other hon members who, on other occasions, when for other reasons it suited them, said this Government should curtail its expenditure as far as possible? What chiefly constitutes Government expenditure in many departments? Salaries and salary increases, not so? Now the hon member for Carletonville is specifically arguing in favour of salary increases, and what is more, not at a rate of 3%, 4% or 5%, but at a rate of 17%. I should like to know whether the hon member for Barberton agrees with that statement made by the hon member for Carletonville. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Barberton is, after all, the CP’s official spokesman on finance in this House. Does he agree that at this stage, whilst we are engaged in a tremendous struggle to combat inflation, the State should grant a salary increase of 17%? Does the hon member for Barberton support this argument advanced by the hon member for Carletonville? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville also tried to prove that his party did not advocate equal pay for equal work. Is that what the hon member said? Did I understand him correctly? The hon member does not reply. I therefore accept that I understood him correctly, Sir.

I put it to the hon member for Carletonville that the CP’s viewpoint is one of justice, of no domination and of not begrudging others what it allows itself to have. Surely that is the point of departure that the CP’s spokesmen try to convey to us day after day in this House. Is that not perhaps merely for party political expediency and for the sake of the approaching by-elections? When the CP does not want to maintain that standpoint, they make statements of the kind made by the hon member for Carletonville earlier today.

I do not, however, want to dwell for very long on the hon member Carletonville. Just one final remark or two, and then I am finished with him. The hon member said the NP was a party that advocated capitalism. Yes, Sir, the NP is a party that advocates capitalism. So the hon member is correct. But does the hon member know what he is saying by implication? He is saying by implication that the CP does not support capitalism. [Interjections.] Has he clarified that standpoint with his chief spokesman on finance? I do not think so. [Interjections.]

Today I want to speak about the fact that in certain respects the CP is indeed a reasonably formidable political opponent, because it is a moving target. If one wants to pin them down on an argument or standpoint, one learns hardly a day later that they now have another standpoint.

We are engaged, amongst other things, in a financial debate. Allow me to single out a few relevant examples. What did the hon member for Barberton say during the no-confidence debate at the beginning of this session? I quote:

Then the hon member goes further, with reference to the hon the State President:

Then the hon member asked the following question:

The hon member did not subsequently take a stand; he merely said:

I am now asking the hon member what his party’s standpoint is in regard to less developed areas in which Black people live. Must State revenue be spent on the upliftment of these areas—yes or no? [Interjections.] The hon member for Barberton will not reply. I could say the same thing to him—“I am not receiving an answer”—that he said to us.

Let me quote the answer from the CP’s programme of principles, if the hon member does not have the courage to reply to that himself.

I do not have another turn to speak.

About these depressed areas in which Black peoples find themselves it states, amongst other things:

In its programme of principles this party recommends that financial measures be intensified, but when a by-election is in the offing, the hon member for Barberton asks us about these funds generated from privatisation, wanting to know for whose benefit they will be used. And we are blamed if, amongst other things, the funds are also employed for Black areas where people of colour live. [Interjections.]

The CP is a moving target. One moment they are saying that Government expenditure should be curtailed by keeping salaries in check, and when, the very next day, they say that salaries should be increased, surely I must think I am faced with different target. Whom are we dealing with?

I want to mention a second example. Last year, in glowing terms, the hon member for Barberton— I am glad to have him here—supported a Bill making it possible for us to have the Lesotho Highlands Project. That is true, is it not?

I think you can leave out the “glowing terms”.

Very well, let us leave it at that. Let us simply say that the hon member supported it. Let us also say that the CP as a whole supported it, because there was no dissenting vote. Now that an election is in the offing, however, let us hear what the hon member for Lichtenburg has to say. The hon member for Lichtenburg says the following:

Now suddenly the CP would not do that. [Interjections.] Why not? The target has shifted. Now it does not suit the CP, in the circumstances surrounding an election that is just round the corner, to support once more what they supported last year. [Interjections.]

It is therefore difficult to engage in a debate with the CP. The CP began with the 1977 proposals as a basis for that party’s policy. The party then moved to a mottled homeland policy, and today—whether it wants to acknowledge it or not— it has arrived at a “Boerestaat”. For us, as Nationalists, it is difficult to conduct a meaningful debate with the CP as a result of this method of politicking. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Fauresmith has devoted himself entirely to a discussion with the CP on matters that concern him about that party. I will not join in that debate.

I notice though that the hon member accuses them of not being clear on a number of issues and I hope the hon member will take that to heart in respect of his own party and their policies as well.

The hon the Minister of Finance has clearly pointed out in speeches made by him in recent times that he wants to lay the foundations for economic growth in this country. In his opening speech the hon the State President devoted the majority of his time to discussing economic affairs.

However, there is a fatal flaw in the Government’s approach to the economy. During the course of last year and on other occasions as well, the hon the State President mentioned three main priorities. One is stability or security, the second is social and economic development and the third is political reform. He has correctly identified that these three things are interdependant.

The major section in the opening address is on economic development. It contains a reference of a page and a bit on regional and local stability, and on political reform there was, as my hon colleague for Green Point pointed out, virtually nothing. There certainly is nothing new in respect of domestic political initiatives. All the hon the State President says in that regard is:

That is the contribution to one of the priorities, namely political reform.

Yet fundamental political change is the key to sustained economic growth for this country. South Africa desperately needs economic growth. Our real per capita income has been sliding steadily for the past 14 years. It is below what it was 14 years ago. We are no better off today than we were 20 years ago. Now, when we look around us, all of us will see many people with better houses, cars, clothes etc. It is true. We see that on a day to day basis. However, the figures show that on average we are where we were 20 years ago.

So, if we are seeing people better off—as we do— imagine the millions we are not seeing; the unemployed, the underemployed and the rural and the homeland poor. Imagine what their standard of living must be like if any of those around us appear to be better off than they used to be.

Almost everybody wants sustained economic growth, but we will not get it for as long as we have apartheid and deny legitimate democratic rights to the majority of the people of South Africa.

I would hope that the hon the Minister of Finance, having been in office for a couple of years, will know by now that there is no such thing as a good Minister of Apartheid Finance.

The interdependence of stability, the economy and political change is recognised by some hon Ministers. I can quote the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare who was reported in Die Burger of 25 March last year as saying at Witpoortjie:

The hon the Minister of Finance was reported in the Cape Times of 12 November of last year as follows:

Further on it is reported:

That is quite correct, but when we look at the opening address of the hon the State President we find virtually nothing there which gives one any reason to believe that we are about to solve the country’s political problems.

This need for political change is recognised by the hon Ministers I have mentioned as well as by some others, but what is happening? I will not go into much detail, because the hon member for Green Point covered the point excellently earlier this afternoon. Whether one goes back to the creation of the original President’s Council, to the time when there was the intention to set up a Black council, to the 1983 Constitution and the referendum, when it was said that once we had got that out of the way, we would handle the issue of Black political rights, or whether we go back two years to the Opening Address at Parliament when the National Statutory Council was announced by the hon the State President, we know that over this period of five years and more, no substantive progress has been made.

It is clear that the NP lacks the will, the imagination or the courage, or all three, to resolve the issue of Black political rights. It is frozen with fear and unwilling to jettison apartheid once and for all.

Apartheid harms economic growth for several reasons: The waste and duplication involved— and we all know what that means, even within Parliament itself—the bloated and unproductive bureaucracy needed to administer it; the foreign isolation that has resulted; and the lack of confidence in our future stability that has been generated.

Confidence is the key to sustained economic growth, confidence generated in a society in which stability is achieved by the consent of the governed. Stability created by military might and ruthless oppression is an illusion that will not last.

Investors have spoken out loud and clear—they have let their money do the talking. We all know that foreign investors have for a variety of reasons been withdrawing their money from South Africa, and let us not underestimate the longterm effects of that, because over the years a great deal of our economic growth has been the result of foreign investment. However, I want to talk about the South Africans themselves this afternoon. What have they been doing?

When one wants to look at a key measure of confidence in a country’s economy, one can use various yardsticks. One of the most important yardsticks is domestic fixed investment. It is a key measure and an indication of the increases in productive capacity in our society which results in job creation and a potential for rising living standards.

What has been happening? Both total gross domestic fixed investment and private fixed investment are down by 30% since 1981. Total fixed investment was lower in 1986 than every single year before that since 1972. It was, therefore, at its lowest level for 15 years. I am talking about the figures for 1986, because those are the latest figures we have for a full year.

Gross domestic fixed investment has declined for at least five years in succession. This is unprecedented. Since the Second World War, only once before, between 1976 and 1978, has there even been a decline for even three successive years.

This is a searing indictment of this Government, a resounding vote of no confidence in NP policies and a tragedy for South Africa. Cyclical factors such as sharply reduced inventories will result in fixed investment increases from time to time. I will be surprised if there is no increase in 1988 and maybe 1989 as well. Even if there is, it will not be sustained unless fundamental political change is brought about.

The simple fact is that there will not be sustained economic growth until long-term confidence has been generated in South Africa, and that depends on political change which this Government is incapable of bringing about. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cape Town Gardens spoke about confidence. Voters have confidence in a party which speaks clearly and states its policy lucidly. Voters’ confidence in that hon member’s party has declined to such an extent that they no longer listen to what that party has to say. The members of that party differ among themselves on so many aspects that voters simply cannot have any confidence in them.

I want to tell the hon member we have full confidence in the NP, in our hon Minister of Finance—we are very proud of him—and in the hon the State President and we also have full confidence in the economic announcements and policy, which were clearly set out.

In speaking of confidence and voters’ support of the party, we say to the Official Opposition that the voters also have a problem at the moment regarding their policy. If I may give them some advice, I want to tell them to explain their policy clearly so that voters may know where they stand. We have become so confused by the magic word “partition”. In this regard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that he would clear up the mess. Heaven will descend upon earth once partition is introduced. We ask those hon members, however, to tell us plainly what partition is, what it comprises and how much it will cost. Under the present conditions it is important to know this. For instance, the CP says in its publication Patriot that an own White territory is not negotiable. We humbly ask what territory it is referring to. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said the only point on which they differed with the AWB was that of boundaries. We merely want to know where the boundaries are. Last year hon members of the CP spelt out the policy. They told the NP that land purchases were enormously expensive but that land was important. The hon the State President said we would honour the 1936 Act and exceed it in moderation where necessary. In addition we would provide more land for urbanisation, which was inevitable.

Let us now examine the CP’s standpoint on land. Its members say in their programme of principles that land should be consolidated to the greatest possible degree, provided the land quota is not exceeded. I have news for them, however. The land quota has already been exceeded. Now they say they do not intend exceeding it. They also say they will hold the land in trust which means they will not give more land than provided for by the 1936 Act. What members of the CP are actually saying is that they will take land from Black people; they will not give more. They add that they intend exchanging land. Who wants to exchange what? What Whites want to exchange areas with Blacks? CP members say they will make no further donations of land; Black people will have to pay for the necessary land themselves. Its members have said they will permit Black people to buy land in White South Africa. That is correct. They declared this to be their policy in last year’s debate but now their policy is catching up with them. I received a telegram from CPs—not from the AWB—in which they said they should receive land in terms of the 1936 legislation. They said there was reason to believe that farms now to be auctioned could be purchased for the benefit of Blacks and that the CP objected most strongly to this. Their party leadership therefore says that they will give more land, perfect partition and effect a redistribution of South Africa but the voters say they are not giving any more land. They say—hon members should note this—that especially in the Transvaal, the Free State and Northern Natal land may not be touched. Voters say they will not permit that land to be expropriated from Whites by Blacks. This is clearly apparent now.

The CP has acknowledged at this stage that the AWB policy of an isolated area, the “Boerestaat”, has been accepted by its members. I note a clear difference. The CP does not object if we expropriate land in the Cape Province or in other parts of Natal but its members raise serious objections if we touch land in the Free State, the Transvaal or in Northern Natal because the AWB tells them that that land is inalienable. [Interjections.] They do not want to tell the voters before 2 March that they intend abandoning the people in Natal and the Cape Province, although they have already decided to do so.

As regards the matter of the television debate, I want to draw those hon members’ attention to the following. As we know the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, he will not appear in front of the cameras before 2 March, but we cannot allow this. [Interjections.] He will not do so!

We shall see! [Interjections.]

I challenge those hon members to prove me wrong. The hon member for Pietersburg spoke of a White state and a White fatherland—almost of a “Boerestaat”. That hon member must tell me whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will appear on television before 2 March. [Interjections ] All right, he will, but I merely want to suggest that, if he does not appear before 2 May …

March!

… March, we give Mr Jaap Marais the opportunity of appearing there. [Interjections.]

Order!

Otherwise we should give Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche the opportunity, because he is a straight talker and those hon members are not.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

Order! Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I do not want to waste my time.

Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche is a straight talker and we can understand him. He says they will carry out resettlement forcibly. He says he will give no more land and that the boundaries of the “Boerestaat” have been clearly defined. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says they still differ a little on where the boundaries should be, and division of land and partition are the answer. Are the CPs prepared to surrender more land? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke about impediments in the way of our policy regarding the acquisition of land and said:

Who are the people employing delaying tactics in the acquisition of land and who announce that they want to redivide South Africa? They are the Official Opposition and their hon leader.

Mr Chairman, I have listened attentively to the debate so far, especially to the contribution of the hon member for Vryheid who spoke on homelands and partition. I must tell him, however, that even if only hon members on that side of the House support partition it is a policy of more integrity than one which claims that White and Black share the same territory but they may not share power.

What is your policy? You have none!

We shall get to that one day. [Interjections.]

I want to draw hon members’ attention to various points raised here. People who believe we shall solve the political crisis South Africa is currently experiencing by means of some magic economic formula or other like the hon the State President’s privatisation proposals are indulging in wishful thinking.

I want to illustrate this statement today by referring to the crisis situation dragging on in our Black and Coloured schools and the way in which the Government is trying to end this crisis.

In the first place I think this crisis will not be ended by the mere provision of more money and facilities—not that they are unnecessary. The crisis in our Black and Coloured schools is fundamentally a political one. There is increasing resistance among our Black youth against this Government’s apartheid policy which continues to ignore the Black man’s political rights. It will require political solutions and not merely increased financial expenditure to deal with these grievances.

In the second place this political crisis in our Black and Brown schools will not be solved either by massive, large-scale oppression of the communities’ legitimate political aspirations and by sending hundreds of policemen into our Black and Brown schools and practically occupying some of them.

Do you hate the police, Jan?

It is truly a despicable interjection that I hate somebody. How can one hate a group of people—policemen, members of Parliament or whoever? Surely that is senseless. The hon member made the same interjection the other day and it is senseless rubbish. Surely it is nonsense that I would hate every policeman. [Interjections.]

The problem in our schools will not be solved merely by sending more security forces into those schools. I believe the Government should see to it immediately that a political solution be applied and stop actually using the police to do the Government’s political work for it in schools and communities. It should stop using the police to do its dirty work. If its members had had a policy capable of satisfying grievances, it would not have been necessary to send in the police to take tough action as is actually the case at present.

Scores of policemen have already told me they are tired of solving the Government’s political problems and being on the receiving end of the ferocity in the townships against Government policy. Governmental policy makes the police the whipping-boys in the townships. They are on the receiving end of the rage and frustration in the townships. Instead of sending policemen into the townships, hon members of Parliament on that side of the House in particular should go there. This is where the policy which elicits resistance outside is formulated. Why should the police be there and take the blame for them?

This afternoon I want to refer to recent events at one school in the Western Cape to illustrate how the present policy of using security forces in our schools has given rise to greater unrest. The way in which the situation at the Manenberg Senior Secondary School is being dealt with is an immediate threat to the stability of all the Black and Brown schools in the Cape Peninsula.

The fact that we have a state of emergency means that we in this House do not even know what is going on in those schools at the moment. The community, and specifically White voters, are unaware of what is happening daily in schools in the Peninsula. We are ignorant of this and are not permitted to publish it. Newspapers keep it from us. If I am afraid of anything, it is an uninformed body of voters because such people cannot react positively to the request by the Government or anybody else for peaceful, evolutionary change.

What is happening at these schools? Two temporary teachers were summarily dismissed without any proper notice a few days before the start of this first term. Three other teachers, Cheryl Boer, Lilian Button and Selvin Daniels, and three students, Conrad Cornelisson, Magbool Moos and Mark Splinters, were arrested by the police on 31 January and 1 February and are still being held in custody at present.

Why were the first two dismissed?

Besides these eight, the police also visited the houses of five more teachers, one SRC member and three other youths, the SRC member being pulled out of bed at gunpoint.

Sir, allow me to state quite clearly that there had been no incidence of violence or arson at the school. The only sin these people had committed was in some way to give vent to their political frustrations and to demonstrate, in a totally peaceful manner, their resistance to the present minority regime.

The people of Manenberg know that their detained and harassed teachers and students are not criminals and they know that the police are merely trying to destroy the growing popular resistance to the system.

Besides detention without trial, the police also used other methods which I find utterly objectionable, and I am sure that no hon member in this House would tolerate such behaviour against his or her child. I would not tolerate such behaviour against my child.

We would not tolerate it from anybody if it was true.

I would be the first person to put someone in his place who treated my child in that manner at school.

On Tuesday, 16 February, a number of students from the Manenberg Senior Secondary School were picked up by the police while they were on their way to school. I have in my possession two affidavits and one statement from three students explaining what happened to them. A 14-year-old student, Farieda Salie, and a 16-year-old one, Mario Carstens, who were picked up by the police on their way to school were assaulted by being slapped in the face and punched in the stomach, and incredibly filthy language was used against them, which I am not going to repeat in this House. Mario also witnessed police hitting another student.

*Sir, I want to state frankly that I do not enjoy recounting this as it cannot fail to tarnish the image of the police.

Are these cowardly allegations going to be brought…

I am not enjoying this, but it …[Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Germiston is participating too much in the debate.

Mr Chairman, that is the truth and, if it hurts, it does not help for us to fight about the hurt. We should change the truth by altering such conditions and preventing such occurrences.

†After this treatment resulted in no new information being given to the policeman … By the way, one of the policemen was dressed in yellow. He had on a yellow shirt, black pants, yellow socks and black shoes which is the sort of dress worn by students on what they call “American Day” or “Comrades Day”. The policeman was also dressed in the same black and yellow uniform. [Interjections.] He asked this 15-year-old student, Vanessa Jacobs—and I have an affidavit here—to spy for the police on fellow students and teachers at that school, and told her that they would pay her R200 for such information. The offer was also conveyed to her mother, and I have an affidavit which I received last night from the child and her mother. I also have the policeman’s handwriting. He gave her his name and telephone number. There is no doubt about this case. That is what was done to this child.

I find these actions to be despicable and I can assure hon members that these actions are counterproductive and will increase instability in the schools. I find it utterly reprehensible that the police spend their time setting up spy networks at our schools. How many spies paid for by the taxpayers are there lurking in Black and Coloured schools? They are not solving the problem. The problem is the political grievances in the community, and by spying on people one is not going to solve the problem.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

What must we do if we want to solve the problems in that school? We must immediately re-employ the two teachers who were dismissed. This is being considered by the Department of Education and Culture. Furthermore, the SA Police will have to release the six detained teachers as well as the detained students. [Interjections.] That is what should be done, Sir, unless there are charges against those people, and such charges can be communicated to them. Sir, I am told that my time has expired.

He is talking nonsense in any case! [Interjections.]

Unless steps are taken to stop this, people will conclude that this is indeed planned.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to react to a few of the statements made by the hon member for Claremont about the SA Police. I think it is disgusting the way this hon member rises in this House time and again to formulate interminable charges against the SA Police and then to use this House of Assembly as a tribunal to utter judgments arising from his allegations. Not one of the statements constantly made here by the hon member, with affidavits as supporting evidence, has ever stood up to the test of cross-examination anywhere. So often in the past there was adequate proof that even these statements made to the hon member for Claremont would not stand up to the test of cross-examination. Sir, I consider this disgraceful, to put it mildly.

I do not blame the hon member for using Parliament as a forum to bring certain matters to our attention. I do hold it most strongly against him, however, that he is in the process of moulding such action of his into a fixed pattern. Time and again when this hon member rises in this House he comes up with one charge after the other against the SA Police. In addition the hon member for Claremont could not see eye to eye with his former colleagues of the PFP—his colleagues in this Parliament. Hon members of the PFP have become a frustration and an obstruction to him in his liaison with extraparliamentary organisations.

The way in which he used this Parliament again this afternoon simply leaves one stunned. I want to ask the hon member how much time he has spent in this Chamber this afternoon. The hon member for Claremont does not even accord other hon members the courtesy of listening to the debates here. If he has spent a total of half an hour in the House this afternoon, it is an exceptionally long time. The hon member comes in here, makes his speeches, launches his filthy attacks on the SA Police and then usually walks out again.

Let us argue the concept involved when the hon member for Claremont alleges that the SA Police is being used to do the Government’s dirty work because the South African Government—this government of apartheid—does not have an answer to the political questions of the country. What is the hon member for Claremont doing? What is he doing to help the Government and the SA Police in dealing with an extremely delicate and difficult situation? He is of no assistance whatever to the South African Government. He, the man who supposedly has so many contacts with extra-parliamentary bodies, is silent. If he is not silent, in any case he is highly ineffectual in bringing those involved to the Government for calm argument about the political problems of South Africa.

How does this hon member make the task of the SA Police more difficult? There was repeated reference to a variety of incidents indicating that this hon member does not facilitate matters for the SA Police but actually aggravates them. He makes it more difficult for them to carry out their duties. A member of Parliament is an important personage. Nevertheless he is not so important that he is above the law. Neither is he so important that he can assume command of situations and give the Police instructions and argue with them arrogantly as if he were not subject to the authority of the SA Police. [Interjections.] Such is the conduct of the hon member for Claremont, Sir. [Interjections.]

I have a further comment, however. What I find most objectionable—absolutely objectionable— is the hon member’s statement that we in these benches are prepared to share this country with people but not to share power with them. The truth is that we are not prepared to permit power to be seized from us. There is sufficient proof to indicate that some of the bodies which that hon member so frequently champions have precisely that as a political objective. They do not want to share power with us but to seize it from us. We reject that and rebel against it.

I want to make a final observation. The hon member for Claremont is debating here as if totally unaware of what is occurring in extra-parliamentary political circles. When he enters this Chamber he does so piously with his parliamentary notebook. He makes a few rapid statements and then decamps again, only to reappear when he is to make his next few statements.

He has not done any national service yet either. [Interjections.]

What is more, it is common knowledge and reported in the media of this country that the state of emergency is a source of irritation to the ANC and these people who are instigators of violence and want to seize power from us. What does this hon member do?

He is a supporter of …He is a supporter of theirs.

He comes here to argue that the state of emergency is not a source of irritation to revolutionists only …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: An hon member said that I was a member or supporter of the ANC. Is that parliamentary? [Interjections.]

Order! Did an hon member allege that the hon member for Claremont was a member of the ANC?

Mr Chairman, I did not say he was a member of the ANC; I said he was a supporter of the ANC. [Interjections.]

But that is the same thing.

Order! The hon member for Durbanville must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I want to conclude the argument on the state of emergency. The hon member for Claremont acts here as an apologist for those who allege the state of emergency is a source of irritation to those people striving for peaceful change in this country. That is untrue. It is a source of irritation to revolutionaries and perpetrators of violence in this country. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House know we have come a long way with political reform and also that a long way still lies ahead. We know we dare not neglect our duty regarding the quality of life of people in this country nor as regards their political rights but we shall not fail in our duty when it comes to preserving the safety of our people. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, before I react to the hon members’ contributions, I should like to present a short statement to the House.

The announcement in the hon the State President’s opening address that a number of State business undertakings and corporations were to be privatised has unfortunately given rise to speculation in the financial markets in regard to the status of the stocks and loans of the organisations concerned. In particular this unsound speculation centres around the prescribed asset status of this paper, guarantees on foreign loans and tax concessions which exist at present in respect of trade securities tax and the interest tax on nonresidents.

The effect of this speculation is unfortunately that the interest rates at which the stocks of these organisations are trading, particularly on the capital market, have risen considerably and that the trading of their stocks by the organisations themselves is now far more difficult.

Obviously it is not in anyone’s interest that this uncertainty should continue. Consequently I want to avail myself of this opportunity to assure participants in the markets that the status of stocks and loans already issued by these institutions to date, or which will still be issued up to the date of privatisation, will not change as a result of the privatisation process.

The statement is also being issued to the media, and I want to express the hope that this will restore calm to the uneasy capital market.

I should like to react as far as possible to hon members’ speeches. Hon members who receive no comment must please forgive me. We do not have all that much time to react to all of the more politically orientated arguments, particularly as regards hon members on this side of the House, and I crave their indulgence for this in advance.

I should like to come back to the CP at the end of my speech, and I shall therefore omit them at the beginning.

I want to thank the hon member for Vasco in his absence for his contribution, and just refer to one point he made. He asked for a co-ordinator to be appointed to ensure that the privatisation programme was carried out successfully. I want to give him the assurance that in the entire coordination and launching of this process we shall make very thorough use of manpower from the cadres in South Africa that possess the necessary expertise. We have many accomplished people in the Public Service and of course, as far as financial matters are concerned, in the Department of Finance as well. In this process, though, one needs people with special knowledge of capital structures, share transactions and so on, and that expertise we shall recruit from outside sources. I give him the assurance that we are hard at work on that aspect of the matter.

The hon member for Vasco is indisposed, but we hear that he is now on the way to recovery. We share the reassurance of that good news with his next of kin.

†I want to thank the hon member for Yeoville for his contribution too. The two of us have done battle over many years on many points. It is a pleasure for me to be able to associate myself with most of what the hon member said. What we are dealing with here, especially as far as privatization is concerned, is something that makes sense from any point of view. As formulated in the speech of the hon the State President it had the benefit of very thorough consideration and investigation beforehand, and was eventually given the impetus and the full support of the Head of Government and Head of State. This is something which can effect the functioning of the economy in South Africa materially and when it comes to that arena, I am happy to say that we can count on the support of the hon member for Yeoville, as we have seen. I thank him for that.

The hon member enquired as to the type of expenditure that would be financed from the proceeds. That was given attention in the hon the State President’s speech in which he indicated three main areas, more or less in order of priority: Firstly there is the redemption of public debt, which in turn will occasion a reduction in running expenditure by reducing the public debt servicing Vote on the Budget. Secondly, the proceeds will be invested in infrastructure and services in the developing areas. Thirdly, capital funds will be established in order to promote small and medium business enterprises.

Particularly with reference to the second point, I think the hon member for Yeoville can rest assured that the Government is very serious about addressing those areas in South Africa where the need is most apparent.

We have many areas in South Africa where an underdeveloped infrastructure and the lack of such facilities not only cause the people there to have to put up with a lower standard of living than they would have otherwise desired, but are also an incentive for them to leave those areas and move to the metropolitan areas. It makes good sense from every point of view to redirect capital which one had invested in certain projects which enjoyed a high priority at a certain stage into other areas where one does not necessarily require a very high real return on capital in the short term, but where the provision of social benefits and a contribution to employment creation, the overall development of that area and GDP are more important from a direct and an indirect point of view than a purely arithmetically calculated rate of return. Social investment will certainly enjoy an extremely high priority in this regard.

When one analyses the hon the State President’s speech carefully, one sees quite clearly in the process of having defined for ourselves what is affordable in terms of exploiting the tax base and capital market, that there are vast areas which we have not addressed if we have done that particular exercise. Those areas just cry out for investment, necessarily of a more social kind. As far as that is concerned, I can put that hon member’s mind at rest.

I also support his point regarding ownership. This will be spelt out more clearly at a later stage when firmer guidelines can be published about the privatisation process. Obviously there must first be inter-action between Government and the committee which has been made responsible for this, as well as with the various institutions and their particular advisors. Meanwhile, however, we can largely agree that a broadening of ownership is certainly an objective.

One cannot define a specific order of priorities to which must be kept for each and every stage of privatisation or for the privatisation of specific institutions. Broadly speaking, one can say that the main aim in privatisation is to reduce the overall activity and share of the public sector in the broad economic activity in the country. This will bring a lot of benefits in its wake, namely a better functioning economy, a better allocation of resources, the broadening of the tax base, job creation in certain areas, and the kind of investments we referred to earlier. At the same time, however—it is also academic to argue whether it is a principle or a consequence—there is the whole question of the broadening of ownership.

Saying that there is merit in the hon member’s statement that there must be ownership by the people does not necessarily mean that one should now exclude the larger institutional investors from also having a share in the whole exercise. Obviously there is a lack of sufficient investment opportunities in South Africa. This was made manifest very clearly in the performance of the stock exchange last year. Directly and indirectly, perhaps via the small share holder eventually taking his profit getting rid of his shares, large investors will naturally also obtain their specific share in these enterprises.

The hon member, obviously with his tongue in his cheek, asked what the difference between this year’s part appropriation speech and that of last year was. I think the hon member for Kuruman gave him an adequate answer, which I should like to supplement in a small way.

The basic answer is that last year was election year. Obviously that is the answer, because in an election year, the Budget speech takes place late in the year. Obviously there is a need at an early stage of the debates of that year to give proper account of the state of the economy. At the same time, if one has any stimulatory measures in mind, one does it then because one will not have an opportunity to do so subsequently. Obviously one also has to put people’s minds at rest, people who are desperate for certain news, for instance the pensioners. There is nothing sinister about it. If the hon member wishes to tease us about our being politicians, may I point out that we are obviously politicians, and so is that hon member?

Whose tongue is in whose cheek now?

There is really no essence in the debate with regard to the quotation that the hon member mentioned. He quoted it as coming from the Director-General of Finance. The question was whether the decision not to grant a general pay increase this year was an anti-inflationary measure or a fiscal measure. It is like asking which came first—the chicken or the egg. To the extent that State expenditure is a villain in the inflation formula, it was an anti-inflationary measure. I think, however, that the key to the whole affair is contained in the speech of the hon the State President, in which he made it absolutely clear that if a general wage increase had been considered, it would have had tax implications. I think that is the answer that really lies at the bottom of this argument.

The Director-General made that particular statement, because in the plethora of statements that followed that particular speech of the hon the State President many commentators were very cynical about it. They asked if that was the Government’s complete answer to inflation. It is obviously not. I think that perspective was necessary, and that that was the purpose of the Director-General’s statement.

In the overall context of an anti-inflation campaign, wages and salaries—their effect as far as our business is concerned, namely on tax, and as far as real business enterprises are concerned in terms of the cost of their products or the services they render—are an important factor in this equation. There are certainly many other things as well, however, which affect monetary and fiscal policy.

The hon member made a very valid point, and I can tell him that in this regard the hon the State President is personally taking on a great deal of responsibility in order to persuade the private sector to co-operate. The hon member is correct in this respect. That is why the hon the State President called the business community together with the Economic Advisory Council on the day before the opening of Parliament. He wished to exercise the necessary degree of moral suasion, to create a team spirit and to break the psychology of inflation expectations.

The combating of inflation is not merely a numbers game, but also a game of perceptions and expectations. Unless one takes a bold step in this direction, there is no way that one will be able to transfer this kind of attitude to the public at large and particularly to employers outside the public sector. That pertains not only to their salary and wage policies but certainly also to their prices. One notices with alarm that there have been instances in which wage and price increases by a particular institution followed in quick succession upon each other. That is the kind of chain that needs to be broken, and to that the hon the State President is totally committed.

I should like to mention a final point. The hon member referred to the whole question of administered prices and State tariffs. Obviously we are talking here about a comprehensive approach. It is not my duty to speculate on any of the activities of my colleagues who handle their own budgets in this House. As far as that is concerned, we shall have to exercise patience. We are certainly not so naïve or ill-informed as to believe that we have now delivered the final blow to inflation and that we can sit back while the other areas of our responsibility as far as the State is concerned do not adhere to this particular approach. I think that is as far as we can go at this stage. We shall have to develop the figures and see what our colleagues can come up with later on in this session.

Other hon members dealt with capitalism versus socialism, and the futility of sanctions. I wish to thank them for their contributions. The hon the Deputy Minister also responded to some of the other speeches, for which I thank him.

*I want to address a few special words to the hon member for Winburg. He even evoked a compliment from the CP. I want to tell him I think that our hon colleagues in this House will agree that his speech was a kind of speech one would like to re-examine. In it he told us that together we achieve more. I think there is a great deal of appreciation for the fine contribution he made in this debate. Of course that does not mean that our other hon colleagues did not make equally good contributions, but I think, to judge from their reaction, that this hon colleague of ours deserves that objective appreciation.

You are referring of course to our colleagues on this side of the House.

Yes, of course.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North made a very interesting statement on the basis of aspects of the economic policy of the AWB which he quoted. I think there must be a problem in the ranks of the CP caucus about a proper standpoint on privatisation.

I do not know whether there are only five members of the AWB in the CP, for when I listen to their sentiments they are almost all of them AWBs. It makes no difference whether they have membership or not, we judge them according to their standpoints. How can they, with intellectual honesty and integrity, adopt a standpoint in favour of privatisation—particularly if they are AWB members—if the AWB, according to the information the hon member for Bloemfontein North gave us, advocates a policy of nationalisation? Consequently they have a dilemma in their caucus. It is therefore no wonder that we were unable to get a cohesive reaction from them and that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, in his first reaction to the address made by the hon the State President, said nothing about it. He was unable to do so, because his advisers were unable to give a cohesive reaction. I do not blame him for not being able to or not wanting to say something about that from his own experience. That is not relevant. There has never been an office-bearer who knew everything, for then colleagues and teams would not have been necessary. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition could probably have ensured that he was provided with the necessary advice. In his reply he did make a feeble effort in this connection.

The simple truth lies in the information which the hon member for Bloemfontein North gave us. There is a duality because there are members in that caucus who signed to indicate that they were in favour of nationalisation, and they are therefore unable to say a single good word about the policy of privatisation and remain intellectually honest. [Interjections.]

I thank the hon member for Kuruman for his contribution. Who would not like to shove in the same political scrum with the man from Kuruman?

Hear, hear!

I think everyone in this House was disappointed when he made the sad announcement that his time, after so short a while, had elapsed. I want to thank him for the perspective he furnished in regard to the so-called constant overspending. I want to thank him for the way in which he not only entertained us, but made a clinical analysis of the fiasco in respect of the TV debate and all the somersaults made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in that connection.

I really have problems understanding the logic of the hon member for Green Point. He said he took it amiss of the hon the State President for saying so little, according to him, about reform in the opening address. He was therefore insinuating that there had not been any progress and that no undertaking was given to accomplish certain things, and so on. Must the hon the State President talk about everything, every time? Because the hon the State President in the past devoted only a small portion of his speech to the economy, must we now deduce from that that the hon the State President relegated the economy to the background in those years? Surely that is nonsensical. I should like to remind the hon member that the negotiating process is such a delicate matter that it can best be conducted without being known to the public.

If there is any negotiation!

Who is that hon member to say that there is no negotiation? He reminds me of the fellow who thought the cricket match was over if he did not hear the score over the radio every 15 minutes. Surely that is not necessary. Surely no score is going to be given of what progress is being made with this process.

It could be over!

Nothing is happening, and you know it! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg and many others of us have become tired of debates on the AWB in this House and elsewhere, and also of the polemic in this regard. Frequently one gets the feeling that one cannot really get one’s teeth into that organisation. I want to say that the hon member for Sasolburg placed important things on record today. On the basis of authoritative quotations he gave each one of us something with which to really get to grips with this phenomenon—which must be eradicated in our country—in our constituencies. I thank him sincerely for that.

†The hon member for Parktown said that the Government and the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, and by implication—if I understood him correctly— the Minister of Finance, whoever that might have been in the past or may be in the future, were unfeeling towards suffering peoples if there were inadequate facilities anywhere in South Africa in terms of hospitals.

He did not say that.

It is a matter of priorities. [Interjections.] We just do not have enough money to do everything that we desire. That holds true not only for hospitalisation and medical services, but for other areas of endeavour as well. We are certainly acutely aware of specific shortcomings, but I thank my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister whom I think adequately dealt with that particular issue. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Durban Central stated that 88% of the total wealth in South Africa was owned by 5% of the people. That may be true— I am not in a position to dispute his figures—but I think this underscores a particular point, which is that our tax system must not be such that we encourage so small a percentage of people—if his figures are true—not to invest in South Africa and rather to go elsewhere or to stay liquid. Their initiative must not be killed. From that point of view I think we need not be at odds with one another, but I think it is an important pointer towards a tax system that enables the First World section of this country to invest here safely with proper rewards and with a view to getting this economy going and to allocating resources in such a way that the necessary economic growth will follow.

In our particular economy, unfortunately, growth is no longer necessarily equal to the creation of jobs. There used to be such a time, but in the hi-tech world that we live in it does not necessarily hold true any longer. Therefore the kind of investment that we encourage in South Africa is also extremely important.

In the light of what I have already said the hon member can certainly accept that when we say we want to develop underdeveloped areas, we are serious about it.

*I also thank the hon member for Smithfield for his contribution. The hon member for Fauresmith made a few very interesting points, and arising out of what he told the hon member for Carletonville, one dilemma of the CP has once again become very prominent.

I really cannot understand why we always see in their publication—I have it here—and in all their other propaganda pamphlets a never ending complaint about how Black salaries have ostensibly increased so enormously on average. They complain that Black salaries are increasing, but at the same time they complain that Black people are not paying enough tax. At the same time they also say—the hon member for Vryheid referred to this—that Black people themselves will have to pay for certain new land and new areas which they must receive. With what must they pay for this if there is not also a proper salary dispensation for them?

What is worst of all is that the hon member for Carletonville carries on about a lack of productivity. He says the productivity is very low. However, when this side of the House spends hundreds of millions of rands on emergency programmes not only to keep people alive by means of soup kitchens but instead to introduce crash courses for the unemployed, most of whom are Blacks, in order to increase their productivity, we get nothing but adversity from the CP.

I recall that we specifically voted some of those amounts additionally, by means of so-called excess expenditure. The main theme of their attacks is excess expenditure. Hon members can read the Patriot, in which all they do is carry on about excess expenditure. After all, we did not overspend because we were too useless or incapable of controlling Government expenditure. During the past few years we have overspent because we knew that was what the economy needed. In the process we not only kept people who were unemployed and desperate alive, but made a positive contribution to increasing their usefulness and productivity.

Now I ask the hon member whether he is in favour of our spending large amounts on training, by way of this informal training which we offered and by way of large investments in Black education, to increase the productivity of the Black workers in South Africa. Is he in favour of such spending, or is he opposed to it? [Interjections.] Sir, it is a simple question. It is a simple and a fair question.

And you gave a fair answer!

No person who understands the interests of South Africa and wants to do something positive about them, need have had any doubt about replying “yes” to that question.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition once did me the favour of telling me across the floor of this House—it was when I asked him a straightforward question about whether or not he was a racist—that he was not a racist. I now want to put a few questions in this regard.

It seems to me you do not want to believe me.

I must believe the hon member, Sir. He tells me he is not a racist, but then we must put him to the test by examining his deeds. His deeds are also carried out by his party compatriots. The hon member for Delmas—he is not sitting in his place now; he is sitting opposite— quoted from the Patriot. I cannot remember from his Hansard precisely whether he also quoted this from the Patriot or whether only the hon member for Yeoville quoted it. The issue was the large State undertakings and corporations. It is stated here on the front page of the Patriot that they were laboriously built up with White money. I do not know whether the hon member quoted that, but he quoted the rest of the Patriot. Now I want to ask him whether he believes it. Does he believes that the large State corporations were laboriously built up with White tax money? Is that a completely correct statement? Does he believe it?

He must first go and ask Eugene.

Now all he can do is show his teeth derisively.

I find it difficult to believe. To all appearances I found the hon member to be a friendly and courteous person. It came as a personal shock to me when I discovered that he was a member of the AWB. When he quoted a few other things from that same edition of the Patriot in this House, I was even more shocked. I did not think that he would find it necessary to repeat, parrot-fashion, a lot of nonsense contained in this newspaper. I have now asked him a fair question—whether he believes the statements of his own official mouthpiece on the money which State corporations and business undertakings have been built up. He is not prepared to side openly and unambiguously in this House with the truth or otherwise of his own party’s official mouthpiece. It seems to me it is not his own party’s official mouthpiece, because he is after all a member of the AWB. Now I do not know whether that is the reason.

I want to put a question to him. He need not reply to me if he is not prepared to do so, but it is an interesting question. Let us say that it is in fact a totally nonsensical statement to claim that there is such a thing as White tax money and Black tax money. When money finds its way into a coffer, that money is the property of that state and all the people of the country. Then the widows mite, in terms of the value in the Exchequer, is worth as much as the richest millionaire’s enormous contribution. This is the truth, and money loses its colour when it ends up in the Exchequer.

However, for the purposes of the argument, let us accept that it is ostensibly only White money with which these assets were laboriously built up. They talk about the Afrikaner people. Now I want to ask him this: Surely there is English money as well—is that not true? [Interjections.] He says yes. There is English money and Jewish money. Surely Whites who are not Afrikaners also contributed. I see no objection to the fact that English-speaking people, who constitute a different cultural group, and Jews, who constitute yet another cultural and religious group, contributed their money. Now I want to ask him what his criterion is. What is the CP’s criterion? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must tell us what it is. Are we then wrong when we say that it is a racist who writes these things? [Interjections.] Surely it is true! It is a racist! [interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is groaning.

You are sick.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says I am sick, Sir. I shall simply drink a glass of water for it. [Interjections.]

I want to turn next to the hon member for Ventersdorp, and I want to request the attention of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for what I am now going to say. I am referring now to his expressed conviction that he is not a racist. I want to quote another one of the babies in his AWB cradle. The hon member for Ventersdorp apologised for his absence. Nevertheless he made a stirring appeal here today. The poor White public servant, he said, had tightened his belt as far as it would go, and the Whites were making all the sacrifices. It was the Whites, he said, who would have to suffer terribly as a result of this decision, and it was the Whites who would have to go under as a result.

Sir, what are the facts concerning people who are paid from the Exchequer? Only 35% of them are White. The other 65% not only find themselves in the ranks of the so-called majority, who, according to the hon member for Ventersdorp, have to make the sacrifices; they also find themselves in the lower income groups who are paid out of the State coffers. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, 65% of the people who, according to that hon member, have to make the sacrifices, are nonWhites. Consequently the hon member’s plea is absolutely racistic, and I challenge the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to adopt a different standpoint in that regard. [Interjections.] He cannot blame us when we consequently believe that if he says he is not a racist, he either stands alone in his party or does not have the courage to call his party compatriots in his caucus to order when they project an image of undisguised racism. [Interjections.] Surely that is true!

You are a real soap box orator!

The hon leader says that I am a soap box orator, Sir. [Interjections. ] That is the reaction from the shadow state president when I confront him with a fundamental problem in South African politics, ie the whole issue of racism. I am confronting him with it, and all he can do is to call me a soap box orator. [Interjections.] I request him rather to display the courage to rise to his feet here and provide us with guidance, which is not only based on his party’s convictions, but also on his personal, Christian convictions. Let him tell us now why they distinguish between White and Black money. When he makes a plea here for the Arikaners …

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

No, I am not going to reply to that hon member’s questions now. When he makes increasingly more fiery pleas for the Afrikaner here, but is nevertheless prepared to use English money for his own purposes, he must explain to us why he makes a distinction between so-called White and Black money. Let him tell us what basis there is for that, Sir, other than that it is a purely racist argument. [Interjections.]

You do not know what racism is! [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says I do not know what racism is. [Interjections.]

I want to raise a third matter. The hon member for Ventersdorp is not present here at the moment. He said that Black salaries had increased by 99% since 1970.

A real AWB statement!

I wrote him a letter to ascertain whether that was a real or nominal figure. He was kind enough to reply and said it was a real figure, and his source was a report of the President’s Council on productivity. I got hold of the report and read it. The hon member was quite correct. He quoted correctly. I shall read it out:

However, in the same report, just a little further on, the following is stated. I do not want to be guilty of making selective quotations. Hon members are welcome to read all the relevant implications in this report as well. I do not have time now to quote it in full. However, I just want to raise two points which are extremely relevant to the statement the hon member for Ventersdorp made. The hon member forgot to read the following, or to take it into consideration when he made his statement. It is stated here:

After all, I did draw the attention of hon members of the CP in this House, and also the attention of Mr Louis Stofberg—he, too, is now member of the CP, but sat here earlier as an HNP member—to the mistakes they were making in their calculations they used in their propaganda documents. I want to indicate again how the CP works with percentages. In the statement the hon member for Ventersdorp made here today— which is going to appear in their propaganda writings as surely as the sun rises in the East—he once again made use of the same insinuation and accepted that his voters would not know enough arithmetic to check on his calculations.

It is stated here that the increase occurred from absolutely low levels.

Before I come to the arithmetic I just want to quote a final passage from the finding of the President’s Council. This is a tragic phenomenon in our economy, but it is the inevitable result of the closing of the wage gap and of other matters, and we can debate the matter:

The Black people themselves, according to the findings of this report, paid the price for those salary increases they had been receiving since 1970.

I want to come back to the arithmetic and point out how the hon members of the CP juggle figures in their publications. If I am earning R100 and I receive a 10% increase, I am receiving R10 more, but if I am only earning R5 and I receive 100% increase, I am only receiving an additional R5. Do hon members know what the CP do? They add up the percentages and say the average growth was 55%. [Interjections.] The basis on which this is calculated—all these things—escapes their attention. [Interjections.]

I want to draw the attention of hon members to this. They must observe how the CP manipulates figures. Every time we get a reference to tax, in this 12 February edition of Patriot as well, the year 1980 is used to show how low the individual’s contribution to total income tax was then and how low the company’s contribution is—in other words how high the individual’s contribution is today. Why do they always choose 1980 for their comparisons? Here I have the figures in my hand. It was the time of those extraordinary boom years, when the gold price went through the roof, and agriculture had record harvests.

In 1980 the contribution to the State coffers by companies was 62,8% of total tax and, when the momentum was carried through to 1981, it was not less than 72,1%. Company tax is open-ended. In other words, the bigger the profit one makes, the further one goes past. One’s ability to pay an enormous amount of tax is exponentially greater than that of an individual, in regard to whom there are certain ceilings to the increase in his personal earnings. Consequently, when the companies made such a jump in those two boom years, and the mining industry did the same—in 1981 the mines contributed not less than 40% of that 72,1 %—individuals contributed only 37% in 1980, and in 1981 only 27,9%.

But what happened in the year prior to the boom year? Then individuals contributed 45,8%, which is considerably more than the 27,9% of 1981 and the 37% of 1980, which is always being dished up to us to indicate how the companies are ostensibly being given preferential treatment compared to individuals. [Interjections.] Here it is stated. [Interjections.] Surely this is politics of deception. The voter, who is not capable of verifying the accuracy of figures, believes them, because the leader of that party is a clergyman, and clergymen do not lie. That is why they believe it. [Interjections.] That is why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must accept responsibility for the incorrectness of the figures that appear in his propaganda. [Interjections.]

I can do the same with your figures. [Interjections.]

I challenge that hon leader to show us where we juggled with figures in the same way.

I shall …

Before the election last year I repeatedly pointed out the mistakes they had made, but those things simply reappeared in identical form in the propaganda. [Interjections.]

I come to this Patriot in front of me. We are dealing with privatisation, and hon members must hear this statement.

Look at this headline in the Patriot of 12 February: “Volksbates uitverkoop.” National assets sold out? We do not even know yet precisely what the capital structure of Escom is going to be. There sits my hon colleague who is responsible for it. We do not know yet precisely what the capital structure is going to be. We do not know precisely how it is going to be marketed. We do not know precisely at what stage of the market it is going to be and how the capital structure and everything else is going to be made up. However, they already know who is going to buy it!

They state here the expectation is … Whose expectation?

There has already been privatisation.

Whose expectation? [Interjections.] They say it has already been privatised. Just listen to that! The hon member is alleging that Escom has already been privatised.

I did not say that. The hon the Minister must listen when a person is talking.

But a person did not speak! [Interjections.]

Very well, the hon member did not say that it had already been privatised, but I think he understands even less about it after that conversation. Here it states:

What kind of statement is this? Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition proud of that statement? Is he proud of such an absurd speculation? Can he be proud of it? No, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition cannot escape the responsibility for the integrity of the propaganda of his party.

We shall castigate him for every inaccuracy that occurs. The CP gets away with it and the people believe them because a clergyman is leading them. [Interjections.] That must never be underestimated. [Interjections.]

What kind of propaganda is the hon the Minister making with that blood on the pavement!

What blood on the pavement?

And the falsification?

Professor Chris Barnard taught us one thing in life …

That young women are delightful! [Interjections.]

It seems to me his brother shares that knowledge!

I think someone put a question to him during an international television debate, and he replied:

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition said something to me about blood on pavements. I want to ask him just one thing now. I am not asking that we balance one another out with distorted propaganda. I am not arguing for one moment that mistakes have also crept in in respect of such things, but I am asking him one thing: If we have demonstrated to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that where they have incorrectly utilised quantifiable facts, and continue to do so in their propaganda, he must accept responsibility if innocent people are going to believe it because the CP is led inter alia by a clergyman. [Interjections.] It is fundamental decency, if one’s facts have been corrected, to make it an integral part of one’s propaganda.

The hon member for Barberton, the main speaker on that side—I have his Hansard to hand—alleged that the gross domestic savings percentage, which we used up by financing current expenditure with capital, was 35% and 68% for 1985 and 1986, respectively. My advisers went to look at table S54 of the Reserve Bank’s quarterly bulletin, and they confirmed that it was 12,8% and 18,8%. The hon member must tell us how he came by his figures. Perhaps there is an explanation for it; I do not know.

The best of all was that the hon member alleged that in 1987 we as a State used up 90% of gross internal savings. Do hon members know what that amounts to? It amounts to 60% of our total budget. Surely that is completely nonsensical.

I was referring to net savings, not gross savings.

Oh no, Sir, here is the hon member’s Hansard. My notes refer to gross savings.

I spoke about net savings.

It is quite correct that it is net savings. I do not know whether the figures tally, but net savings is closer to it.

I just want to point out to the hon member that he should have made a calculation. Net or gross savings is not a figure which is normally used in tables. He therefore had to do some fancy footwork to arrive at a figure which would look as unfavourable as possible. Let us put this aside. I would merely recommend to him to have a look at his Hansard and rectify it, and also to check his figures, because it seems to me there could be a mistake in his figures as well.

In this respect I want to concede to the hon member that it is not a desirable practice to finance current expenditure with capital. However, I now want to ask the hon member an honest question across the floor of this House. I have a great deal of respect for him and I am not quarrelling with him. I think the hon member is an honest debater. I want to ask the hon member whether he really thinks that it was possible to avoid this during these four or five years, and particularly during the past three years. Does he think it was possible to avoid completely the financing of current expenditure with capital? [Interjections.]

I do not take it amiss of him that for owing me an answer, because a responsible government weighs up priorities against one another. We know that it was not the healthiest practice to do so. The alternative was to increase taxes. That was our alternative, because the State had to adopt stimulatory measures; otherwise our economy would have been completely dormant. Not only did we have to maintain a reasonably high level of Government expenditure for the sake of training and certain essential services, but we also had to take certain steps to instil some life into the economy.

I want to tell the hon member that if he, as an intellectual, is honest with himself about this matter, he will agree with me that a responsible government would not have been able to avoid financing current expenditure with capital to the extent to which we did so during the past few years when we in reality confined it to the minimum.

I share the ideal of the hon member that the deficit before borrowing should be utilised fully for capital purposes, but under what international conditions is this economy operating? Have we not discussed this a great deal?

On the basis of a graph we had to make our compromises in respect of what the current account of our balance of payments still had to produce to repay foreign debts. We adjusted it to what we expected the course of the business cycle was going to be. I want to pay tribute to Dr Stals and his people who worked with him on this matter because they were proved to have been absolute correct.

In the international negotiations, which were tough negotiations, they had this matter accepted in this way. However we are working in an environment in which we are committed in respect of what the proceeds of our current account of our balance of payments has to be. At the same time we are committed in regard to what we must leave a margin for in the interior to be able to deal with the growth. This immediately has an effect on money supply targets, which are an extremely important matter.

In the entire process we must adopt measures to stabilise our exchange rate, because we all know what devastation the decline in our exchange rate wrought on the economy of this country, particularly in regard to the inflation rate. We must stabilise interest rates. We have now had negative interest rates for a long time. It is indeed true that it is not the real exchange rate which affects the cash flow of the small businessman, the farmer or anyone else for that matter; it is the nominal interest rate. That is true. But, these are the problems we are struggling with.

Under these circumstances I want to argue with all due respect, that if that hon member is honest with himself on this matter, he must agree with me on the principle of what we have done. Then he and I can simply argue about the extent to which it has been done.

Our hon State President, now that there is life in the private sector, has committed us to pulling back by means of fiscal discipline; in other words, to placing under strict control that part of our expenditure and curtailing it so that the deficit before borrowing in absolute terms can be reduced. Consequently the ultimate object is to have a situation in which we will finance the minimum amount of current expenditure with capital.

I have difficulty with the international definition in any case, and I am not even going to try to argue with my hon colleagues on the basis of an absolute, because what investment extends over a longer term than education, which is a current expenditure? All aspects of defence are classified as current expenditure. Surely that is not true; surely that is not necessary. In the situation in which we find ourselves as a country under threat, with a tremendous need for education, surely it is logical that some of these services will under crisis conditions be financed with loans over a longer term. Consequently I want to tell the hon member that he himself—and the same thing is done in their propaganda—is making a tremendous fuss about our so-called overspending.

Next week the Additional Appropriation will be discussed. Then we can debate the magnitude this year. However, I want to remind him, and I shall give him an analysis of it what amount of that expenditure was expenditure that we deliberately approved, but were simply unable to include in the Main Budget owing to the parliamentary procedure. After all, we cannot accept in the second half of the year that everything we did in the first half of the year was absolutely accurate. We do not have a mechanism in our country by means of which we can effect corrections in the second half of the year.

Consequently I want to say with all due respect that I reject these arguments about our so-called misspending and overspending. I reject them if they are not accompanied with the necessary perspective on what the realities of our economic situation are. If we toss all these variables into a hat and look at the sum total, and consider what our country has achieved during this time—of not only maintaining a positive growth-rate of 2,6%, but also of bringing down the production price index and the inflation rate, increasing our reserves and discharging our foreign obligations— I want to say that if we can accomplish these things when we are hobbled, I wish we can get the opportunity, once free of the inhibitory factors to demonstrate what can be done in this country in comparison with the rest of Africa and the rest of the world.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—90: Aucamp, J M; Bekker, H J; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Cunningham, J H; De Klerk, F W; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Du Plessis, B J; Durr, K D S; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Hugo, P F; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Ligthelm, C J; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, W D; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schlebusch, A L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H 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; Van Breda, A; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

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

NOES—25: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Hulley, R R; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Derby-Lewis, C J; Snyman, W J.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is the result of discussions that were conducted with the independent states. Since it appears that no real principles are at issue, but that there is a great deal of consequential legislation, the Official Opposition supports this legislation.

It is strange that it appears necessary at this time to have to include in legislation something that is obvious, viz that it would not be appropriate for one state to try a case against another in its own courts. To the extent in which it is necessary to make this clear, this legislation is welcome.

Another aspect that will probably please litigants is the fact that there can now be certainty about the time at which legal documents are served. This is another reason to welcome the legislation.

The most acceptable part of this legislation is the section which has reference to the possibly restrictive interpretation that can be given to the concept of property, viz that property should also be defined as any right or interest. In view of the exceptional mutual interests and interwovenness between the TBVC countries and the Republic, we think it is good legislation in that jurisdiction cannot be founded or confirmed. It is very important, therefore, not to discover suddenly that rights and interests can also be obtained in order to found jurisdiction. We think this is good legislation, and we support it.

Mr Chairman, we should like to thank the hon member for Ermelo and the Official Opposition for their support of this legislation. I am pleased that it is going through the House so quickly. This measure will truly bring about uniformity.

I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the Chairman of the standing committee for the way in which he guides the proceedings of the committee. It is my privilege to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, this legislation deals with certain technical amendments to a fairly complicated system of law. I think the purpose of the Bill is adequately described in the memorandum and also in the hon the Minister’s speech. The Bill was discussed in the standing committee and we are satisfied that it conforms with normal international standards in matters of this kind. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon members for Ermelo, Walvis Bay and Berea for their support of this piece of legislation.

I should like to associate myself with the thanks of the hon member for Walvis Bay to the standing committee and in particular its chairman for their support of the legislation. I must add immediately that the Department of Foreign Affairs does not pass much legislation, and I am grateful that it was possible to give the standing committee some work in dealing with this piece of legislation which was obviously not contentious legislation.

What the hon member for Berea said is true. The Second Reading speech was circulated. I am grateful to the few hon members who interested themselves in the subject, because this is really very interesting legislation if one considers it analytically. International law is always very interesting legislation.

This legislation was the result of the work of Secosaf. I should like to take up the cudgels for Secosaf—the Secretariat for Multilateral Cooperation in Southern Africa. They investigated this situation, specifically in respect of South Africa and the TBVC states. It is absolutely essential that this kind of legislation be the same in respect of all five these states. We also have the assurance that the TBVC states will pass legislation similar to this legislation this year.

I should now like to associate myself with the hon member for Ermelo. This is a highly technical piece of legislation. There are really no principles at issue. The purpose of the legislation is merely to eliminate a few ambiguities and uncertainties. I should like to thank him for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of Home Affairs, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation I addressed the Government on the effective utilisation of the natural resources of the country and attempted to provide certain facts in support. I also furnished certain examples. Immediately after me the hon member Mr Lockey spoke and launched a personal attack on me and hon members on this side. I find such personal attacks utterly distasteful and altogether unfitting and I think they erode the dignity of this House. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Schauderville must come to order. The Deputy Chairman of Committees has already given a ruling on that which will be carried out. It is unnecessary to refer to the entire matter again.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I want to say I think it is evidence of political bankruptcy. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture must come to order.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised the matter in the House and a ruling was given. The hon member for Schauderville now has to accept that ruling and defer to the Chair.

Order! The hon member for Schauderville must abide by my ruling.

I wish to request that we debate the facts; then we can conduct a meaningful debate.

Get to the point.

Sir, we cannot carry on in this House like a lot of washerwomen. [Interjections.] We are making a spectacle of ourselves.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: A ruling was given from the Chair on a matter brought up by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Does the Opposition want that ruling changed…

What is the point of order?

Order! The hon member for Border must come to order.

Sir, what is happening in the opposition now is that they are using a clever means of debate.

That is not a point of order.

Order! The hon the Minister is explaining the point of order and I am allowing him to do so.

Sir, the Chair has given a ruling. Now that hon member goes to the other extreme. He is not saying personal things but refers to “washerwomen”. It is therefore a reflection on the ruling of the Chair. My contention is that this ruling applies to every hon member in this House, including the hon member for Schauderville.

I said I accepted your ruling, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is not to take this any further.

One can understand why certain hon members of the House are as frustrated as the hon member Mr Lockey and the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. It is because they were nominated by the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

Leave me out of this.

Order! It makes no difference whether those hon members were nominated or not; the fact is they were nominated legally. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Fish River must come to order.

We do not want to quarrel about Deputy Ministers’ posts as you do.

Order! The hon member Mr Lockey must come to order.

Sir, those hon members seem to suffer from a sense of guilt; that is why one can understand their sensitivity.

Shame (sies).

Order! Did the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare say “shame” (sies)?

I said, “Oh, shame” (ag sies tog).

Sir, I want to refute that allegation. There are hon members in the majority party whose names I do not wish to mention. I do not want to embarrass them because they know one of the reasons for my resignation from the Labour Party was that party’s expansion of the entire concept of own affairs. [Interjections.] I can furnish proof of this. On Tuesday afternoon the hon the Minister of Finance said in his reply, and I quote him as follows:

Sir, this points to the fact that the majority party in this House wants to reject the Constitution on the one hand, but on the other it is expanding the entire concept of own affairs. [Interjections.] That was the basic reason for my resignation from the party. [Interjections.]

It was because you were not promoted.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Sir, one can appreciate the sensitivity of those hon members. [interjections.] The fact that must hurt the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare even more is that the hon the State President forbade his going to America.

Oh, shame! And you support him?

Order! Would the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare please come to order. I also warn the hon member for Schauderville that I shall not permit him to proceed if he attacks the policy of the party. I request him to cease making personal remarks as we should like to raise the standard of debate.

But that is what he asked, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Fish River must control himself. The hon member for Schauderville may proceed.

I now come to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare’s political views. Suddenly that hon Minister wants to carry on like a Malcolm X—suddenly radical.

I have been radical for a long time, long before you became radical!

And while that hon Minister is entrenching himself in the whole system of own affairs!

You too!

Order! The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare must request a turn to speak and then he can refute these allegations. The hon member for Schauderville may proceed.

Sir, I want to say only this: This hon Minister’s radicalism is interesting. When one grows as old as he …

I am not growing old; I am still young. [Interjections.]

… and one wishes to create an impression of radicalism, one merely makes a spectacle of oneself.

Who are you trying to impress?

I should like to request that that hon Minister contain himself, because it affects his dignity. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Schauderville said the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare was making a spectacle of himself.

Order! No, he was talking about a dictator. [Interjections.] The hon member for Schauderville may proceed.

Sir, Someone I find more interesting, however, is the hon member for Mamre. [Interjections.] Suddenly the hon member for Mamre is also becoming very sensitive and increasingly excited in his front bench.

Get to your speech!

Order!

The hon member for Fish River must control himself. The hon member for Schauderville is putting his case. The hon member for Schauderville may proceed.

Nevertheless, one can understand why the hon member for Mamre is becoming so excited. He also aspires to becoming a Minister. [Interjections.]

You are wrong there.

No, I am not wrong. That hon member should not take out his frustrations on us, however, because then he reminds us of Oom Paul Kruger’s baboon. [Interjections.] He should not visit his frustrations on us.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May one hon member refer to another as a “tame baboon”?

Order! Is the hon member for Schauderville implying that the hon member for Mamre is a tame baboon?

No, Sir. I said: “… then he reminds us of Oom Paul Kruger’s baboon.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Schauderville said: “Then he reminds ‘you’ …” not “us”. You said he reminded “you” of a “tame baboon”; you are not comparing him …

No, Sir, to “Oom Paul Kruger’s baboon”. The story runs …

Order! Yes, but hon members may not be compared to animals. Would the hon member for Schauderville withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order.

Order! The hon member for Schauderville has withdrawn that statement. [Interjections.] The debate has only 30 minutes to run and the hon member for Swartland has already raised an objection. I then asked the hon member for Schauderville to explain what he meant and he withdrew his statement. What can the hon member for Mamre’s point of order be in that case?

Sir, my point of order is that Paul Kruger’s tame baboon did not become entangled in the pumpkin plant as those baboons will become entangled. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Mamre must please withdraw that statement.

I cannot withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that statement.

Sir, what statement am I to withdraw?

Order! The hon member is to withdraw the statement that hon members will become entangled like baboons.

Sir, I withdraw the statement that those baboons will not …

Order! The hon member is to withdraw the statement unconditionally.

Sir, I shall withdraw it for one reason.

Order! The hon member is not to qualify his statement. The hon member for Schauderville withdrew his statement and now the hon member for Mamre wants to qualify the statement he has to withdraw. The hon member is either to withdraw it or not withdraw it. Is the hon member going to withdraw the statement?

Sir, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member for Schauderville may proceed.

Sir, our debating time is limited and I shall now leave those hon members in peace.

I want to make a correction relating to what the hon the Minister of Finance said in his reply to the Second Reading debate. He stated that I had ostensibly said there was a surplus of teachers in the Department of Education and Culture: House of Representatives. I made no such statement. I merely referred to White teachers and said, and I quote from my unrevised Hansard speech:

That is what I said. I did not imply that there was a surplus in the Department of Education and Culture: House of Representatives. The hon the Minister made the following statement too and I quote from his unrevised Hansard speech:

I think the hon the Minister was referring here to the Department of Education and Culture: House of Representatives. With all due respect I want to tell the hon the Minister that that is not the whole truth. Indian teachers have been refused posts in the Department of Education and Culture: House of Representatives. My argument ran on the fact that, while we maintained separate institutions, there would always be inequality. I referred to the duplication of services and facilities. The point I am trying to make is that White schools are emptying while schools for those of colour are too full.

The hon the Minister told one of the hon members who participated in the debate and who asked why countries like West Germany were so prosperous that that country did not have the same birth rate as South Africa. A country like West Germany has approximately 45 million inhabitants, but they maintain a much higher standard of living. This country also has a negative rate of inflation. West Germany does not have the mineral riches of South Africa either. We only have a population of 25 million, but the difference is that we have an unschooled work force in South Africa. This also involves the question of work ethics.

†The whole question of work ethics is linked to the question of political rights. When people are denied political rights one cannot expect them to be as productive as they would want to be. In this country we have people who are spending a third of their day commuting to and from their places of work. This obviously influences their work ethics as well as their motivation. If people do not know what they are striving for in the work place, they will not become a motivated work force.

Therefore, in the final analysis, it must affect productivity. That is the point I want to make. As far as comparisons are concerned, we cannot compare the two situations because they are vastly different. Although West Germany’s economy was shattered after the Second World War, it made a remarkable recovery, and the same applies to Japan. Today these two countries are the leading industrial nations of the world. The difference between them and us lies in their training and in the fact that their inhabitants enjoy fair political rights. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the keynote in the hon the State President’s opening address was economic growth. This caused the pessimism of the past four years on economic prospects to start changing to cautious optimism. The South African economy is in the process of shedding the recession of the past four years. Growth is acquiring momentum and the escalating rate of inflation appears to have been stemmed for the time being and is even exhibiting a declining tendency.

One has to mention that the decision to proceed with the Mossel Bay Gas Project was undoubtedly a gladdening announcement. It is remarkable because at that very stage there was talk of unemployment and a lack of confidence in the economy of the country.

The gold price has also contributed; it even burst the magic barrier of 500 American dollars. The rand fared exceptionally well too as regards foreign imports. At the beginning of the year the rand opened at a level of approximately 46 American cents and remained above the 50-cent level until the end of the year. Unfortunately the increase did not make exporters the happiest people in South Africa. The gold price in particular suffered because it could not quite pass the level of R1 000. This would have provided gold shares with further momentum.

Two sectors of the economy which gave a sparkling performance were the vehicle and property industries. The vehicle industry was not only the top performer on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange; it is also a very important economic indicator. The sale of motor vehicles was a considerable improvement on that of last year when this industry experienced a very difficult period.

Even home-owners cannot complain, because they are already paying considerably less interest in monthly instalments on their homes. This is a direct result of a savage tussle in which banks and building societies became involved as they entered each other’s fields.

I consider the fact that the informal sector is also starting to take its rightful place in the economy as important. The hon the State President indicated that policy was heading towards deregulation and privatisation; this is definitely a good investment for the future.

South Africa continued to be involved in boycotts and foreign disinvestment during the past year although these declined appreciably in intensity. Somewhere near the end of the year America again took fiscal steps against American undertakings that were reluctant to leave South Africa. One of the sectors which has been most seriously affected by disinvestment in particular is coal mining. This resulted in coal mines suddenly being less profitable than before. South Africa is even obliged to take a look at markets other than our traditional ones overseas now. The tragedy, however, is that sanctions have caused the very people whom the advocates of sanctions overseas wish to help, to lose their work.

In conclusion, I should like to address South African businessmen. In spite of all the rays of light I have just mentioned, it is imperative that our economy be reformed.

Hon members of the House will probably agree with me that the business world is capable of accomplishing a great deal in promoting the economy. I am referring not only to the elimination of all remaining traces of discriminatory conditions of service, but also to greater participation by Black South Africans at all levels of the economy.

The nature of their activities means that businessmen have relations that do not know racial segregation. That is how the South African economy works. One cannot separate Black and White buying power. A high degree of non-racial interaction and co-operation at working levels already exists at various companies. By promoting these relations businessmen will not only aid in the development of their own companies, but also serve the interests of the economy in general. They will actually be serving the entire South African community.

The co-operation to which I am referring applies equally to representatives of trade unions and entrepreneurs. I regard the eight years of development in relations between management and labour since Black people were accorded joint bargaining as the most significant and productive process in the efforts of a modern South Africa to become a stable and democratic community. Consequently it is essential that neither trade union leaders nor entrepreneurs should remain silent if this process is jeopardised by violence, intimidation and other criminal action.

Mr Speaker, those who have the interests of the country at heart will realise the enormity of the task facing our country in providing its growing population with food, clothing, housing and education. South Africa cannot change the world. We shall only be able to live in peace with the world if we are prepared to learn from the experience of others. If we look at the most successful economies of the Western world, judged exclusively on per capita income or sustained real growth rate, we can recognise certain common trends which result in common objectives in some cases. First there must be a common belief in less government rather than more. Secondly there has to be confidence in the market and management of the economy. Thirdly—and this is very important—a system of free enterprise must receive preference.

This is the source of the hon the State President’s emphasis on deregulation and privatisation and, what is even more important, nurturing of human resources by investing more heavily in education.

Mr Speaker, I am sorry the hon member for Schauderville indulged in such a long political introduction. I should have liked to have had more details on the last part of his speech. The hon member referred to West Germany. It is very interesting to analyse the history of that country. Years ago I had to conduct an investigation into the South African chemical industry and looked up reference material on the development of this industry in various parts of the world.

Early this century an adviser to the German emperor said, “Look, we do not have the raw materials France has.” In those days there was considerable tension between France and Germany. He continued, “Is it not possible to put the raw materials we have—which are poorer in quality—to better use by training our people?” The German emperor then gave instructions that chemical engineers should pay specific attention to a training system which would produce such people.

When the First World War broke out, Germany was the world leader in the field of chemical industry, but after that war those industries were destroyed. The people remained, however. When the Second World War broke out Germany was again ahead of the rest of the world. After that war all their equipment was confiscated by Britain and America, but the people remained and returned from Russia. If one looks at the list of top chemical companies in the world today, one finds the names of Hoechst and Bayer among the first five, because the people were trained correctly. I therefore have no cause to differ with the hon member for Schauderville that we should train people. They are the source.

I also want to tell the hon member this interesting anecdote. Years ago I visited a factory in a small town called Gumersbach—I think the hon member has been there too—and they showed me over the factory. I found a factory school there where children who had passed Std 5 for example enrolled and were taught by factory staff at the factory school. Subsequently pupils completed a type of technical matriculation. Some advanced further in the factory itself while others went to technical schools. As I was listening to the hon member Mr Douw, I asked myself once again what the responsibility of the business world was.

This brings me back to the hon member for Schauderville who spoke on the question of the shortage of teachers and training facilities. Many complaints are made about us on the subject of migrant labour. One visits many of our national states and sees the number of motor vehicles standing there which could be repaired. The question then arises: Why do our mines not start night schools for their workers and train them as plumbers or carpenters? They could train them for some occupation or other so that they were capable of working at something else when they returned to their countries.

Although West Germany differs vastly from South Africa, I think the hon member is right when one looks at those people’s motivation. This only comes with time, however. In comparison with the rest of Africa and South America, we in South Africa dare not complain too much, because we have progressed rapidly over the past 20 or 30 years.

The hon member also mentioned the surplus of teachers at White schools and the shortage on the other side. On the one hand there is a surplus of classrooms and on the other a shortage. This in turn reminded me of the American system in which municipalities, actually local authorities, saw to their own schools by means of municipal rates on property. There has to be a devolution of powers and finance—and I hope this will come— to grant greater powers to the third tier of government. I think that is the purpose of Government policy—which is a sound policy. Regardless of ideological aspects, I think it is a sound policy from a democratic point of view, because the taxpayers and the people concerned are directly involved in the executive process and in decisionmaking.

One will inevitably find differences between towns and cities. There will be a shortage of housing, classrooms and teachers in a rapidly growing place whereas there will be a surplus elsewhere. If one examines any process of growth, development and change, one will find times of shortage and of surplus, so one should take the pattern into account.

I was greatly taken with the hon member Mr Douw’s speech. It seems time spent in the standing committee did him a great deal of good. It was a very positive speech. I should like to start with one point he stressed, which is the informal sector. I do not think we realise how rapidly the informal sector has grown in South Africa recently. I think it will grow even more rapidly if we can proceed with deregulation. I found it interesting that our petrol consumption increased by 9,2% in real terms in the first nine months of last year compared with the first nine months of the previous year. What an interesting figure that is! Whereas the economy grew by only about 2 to 2’/2% in those first nine months, the petrol consumption increased by 9,2%. If one examines what took place, one notices the kombis. One sees that our consumption of diesel rose by only about 2%. The kombis contributed largely to this increase in our petrol consumption.

It is also interesting that at one stage—about November or December last year—the Reserve Bank ran short of notes and coins. This is a further indication of the enormous growth in the informal sector. We even find informal banking in our Black and some of our Coloured towns in which people practically act as bankers. They charge slightly more interest—but there it is.

This is a worldwide tendency. Italy is regarded as the country in which the informal sector comprises a larger part of the economy than in any other Western country. The growth of the informal sector there has led to the Italian claim that their standards of living—the British do not like this very much—are overtaking those of Britain. I therefore believe that we should smooth the way as much as possible for the informal sector from the political side. We obviously have to see whether we cannot also collect tax, because not everyone in the informal sector always pays GST. Time will tell whether we shall collect more tax when we institute Value Added Tax.

The hon member also spoke most engrossingly on the development of management and trade unions and said our people had learnt to negotiate with one another. The Director-General of Manpower is very proud too of the progress made since the Wiehahn Report appeared. It is remarkable how our businessmen have learnt to negotiate. All of us in this country of differing groups will have to learn how to negotiate. Where large undertakings had troubles like strikes, there was usually poor negotiation.

I agree with the hon member, however, that intimidation is a very dangerous element in the labour management situation in South Africa. I believe the hon the State President’s speech is one of the greatest speeches made in postwar years. I do not have much knowledge of earlier periods. I am referring in this regard of the speech that I think was made by Prime Minister Hertzog when he announced the protection of industries in 1925. The fight against inflation, increased productivity and the improvement in exports could be destroyed if our management and trade unions do not act responsibly.

In every strike for which there are no valid reasons, for instance, we are the losers. If we go on strike here, we create additional job opportunities in Taiwan, Singapore, or Hong Kong. When the Japanese strike they do it after office hours. Those people take pride in their work— which links up with what the hon member said. They are motivated. We know how Japan rebuilt itself after the Second World War and how Taiwan progressed. Workers in South Korea made their contribution because they were interested in building up the economy of the country. I think we should convey that message to our workers too. There is no lack of opportunity at present. I think our labour legislation is among the best in the Western world; we need not be ashamed of it. It no longer contains an element of race; the relationship between employer and employee applies.

In fighting inflation we should explain to our people that a demand for a 70% or 80% salary increase will destroy everything. We can only curb inflation if the businessman, employer and the employee shoulder their responsibilities. As the Public Service is not granting any salary increases, this message should be conveyed to the private sector.

It is of no avail to try not to increase salaries and wages in the public sector—although there will be a few adjustments—when, on opening the newspaper, one reads about a company that has a 178% increase on the previous year’s profits and will only start paying tax in 1991. The company receives decentralisation aid and increases its prices to such an extent that clients in South Africa find it very difficult to compete. We must take one another by the hand; we must broadcast that message and it should not be done only among trade unions. If a company’s profit rises by 178% or 176% and productivity increases, one does not mind if there are actually salary and wage increases. Nevertheless when there is a policy in the private sector to adjust prices every quarter or every six months regardless of whether the consumer can carry this or not, and many of those companies do not always pay the tax they should, we have to convey a message to them. They asked us to be conservative in our Government expenditure; they requested us to control such spending better. The hon the State President conveyed the message. We now ask the private sector—the price of beer has increased by 9% which is still below the rate of inflation—not to come with price increases of 16%, 17% and 18%, because that is unfair to public servants who are not receiving increases in salary.

I also agree, Mr Speaker, that it would be preferable to have less government than more government. A well-known person expressed it as follows:

I want to say, however, that we shall be able to decrease Government expenditure further this year. We are trying to control it competently now but we cannot obtain such control in a flash. We also have to increase productivity in our governmental structure which includes all our Government departments of all three Houses. The English found that if they increased the productivity of half their public service by 1%, they would have sufficient additional income to satisfy their educational requirements as well as the demands of most of their public servants until 1992.

It is also interesting that in his announced programme “Quest for Excellence—Reform 1988” President Reagan asked the public service for a 3% increase in productivity; and, if they succeed, he expects to make $3 billion available to the public service for bonuses by as early as July 1988.

In this entire process, however, we represent the thinking of a smaller government and we shall all have to co-operate to see where unnecessary service is being rendered. As somebody so aptly put it, “The man in the street wants ever-increasing services, ever-improving quality and everything has to be subsidised.” We should guard against this because I think our people have reached a stage in which we cannot tax them any further. Taxation is at a maximum. We have the report of the Margo Commission now and are paying it a great deal of attention.

I wish to conclude, Sir. I am pleased the hon member mentioned the preference we are giving free-market philosophy. This is in line with a smaller governmental sector. Hon members know that there are two schools of thought. There are those who believe the State should do everything because they do not believe in the profit motive; there are also those who believe the profit motive is still our best guideline for high effectivity and raising the standard of living of our people.

It is very interesting that Mrs Thatcher has succeeded with her policy within only eight years. For the first time it has become possible for Britain to catch up with the rest of Western Europe as regards higher standards of living. Only by baking a bigger cake and creating more growth can one cut a larger slice for education, health and the salaries of public servants. Nevertheless I repeat that the ship of state is a large ship which has to be stopped and turned around. We have made a start on this and we shall have to see the process through.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I should like to speak in support of the Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill.

This amending Bill contains amendments to eight different Acts which are administered by the office for financial institutions. These Acts include the Insurance Act, [A 27—43]; the Pension Funds Act [A 24—56]; the Friendly Societies Act [A 25—56]; the Unit Trusts Control Act [A 54— 81]; the Participation Bonds Act [A 55—81]; the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act [A 38— 84]; the Financial Institutions (Investment Funds) Act [A 39—84], and the Stock Exchanges Control Act [A 1—85]. We effected certain amendments and the hon the Minister indicated that he accepted clauses 3 and 6. We thank him for this and we support the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, we support the Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill because the control over financial institutions in South Africa is very effective. Hon members will note that legislation in this connection is amended every year to eliminate certain loopholes and problems.

The Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill is actually omnibus legislation because it amends eight financial Acts. Clauses 1 and 2 amend the Insurance Act of 1943 and inter alia confer powers of delegation on the Registrar of Insurance. They also provide that an insurer shall fully cover certain policies with prescribed assets. Clauses 3 to 6 amend the Pension Funds Act of 1956 and Clause 3 in particular addresses the question of a “dependant”. I believe that dependants should be restricted to the immediate family of the member. There was great disagreement on this in the committee and a request was made to the department to give a more detailed definition of the concept “dependant”. One of the committee members mentioned the example of a father who leaves home and goes to live with a mistress. If he were to die the mistress would de facto be the immediate dependant but de jure the children would remain the dependants. The committee wanted a more detailed definition in this connection.

Clause 5 provides that certain policies issued to a pension fund may serve as prescribed assets. Clause 6 deals with the question of payment to a dependant and in this regard the amount to be paid to a dependant or dependants is at the discretion of the Registrar. The committee also experienced big problems in this regard because it may happen that at the death of a member a person may not be legally dependant on him, but immediately after the prescribed period has elapsed that person may become incapacitated and therefore dependant.

Clauses 8 to 17 amend the Unit Trust Control Act. In terms of clause 8 (a) unit trust schemes in listed securities may in future be invested in units in a unit trust scheme in property shares listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. It is important to note that the amendment was made at the insistence of management companies of unit trust schemes in order to enable unit holders to share in the benefits of a wider distribution of shares, immovable property and fixed interest-bearing investments. Clause 10 entails a big expansion to schemes; this was done mainly to protect the public.

Clause 11 will in future enable the Registrar to lay down conditions which shall be complied with after the registration of a unit trust scheme as a management company of listed securities in order to ensure that the registration of the management company will be in the public interest.

Clauses 18 to 22 amend the Participation Bonds Act, 1981. It will interest hon members to hear that the Association of Managers of Participation Bond Schemes of South Africa wanted to have the Act amended to increase the cost of copies or extracts from the register of bonds from 50c to R10. However, this request was turned down by the standing committee.

At present a close corporation does not fall within the ambit of the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act, 1984, and the Financial Institutions (Investment of Funds) Act, 1984, but clauses 22 and 23 now make the provisions of these Acts applicable to close corporations as well.

Amendments have also been effected to the Stock Exchanges Control Act, 1985. In clauses 24

to 32 stock exchanges are being given muscle on the one hand, while on the other greater protection is being afforded to the public as far as the activities of the stock exchange are concerned.

Sir, we take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the members of the standing committee; I think they did good work. I know the definition of the dependant and the nominees and the discretion of the manager of the pension fund are still causing problems. We are always prepared to look into these problems. I do not think it is easy to solve the problems, but as we said in the standing committee, we felt that we had the best solution for the present. We do accept their amendments to clauses 3 and 6, and I therefore thank them for a good contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this measure. The Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board, which was established in terms of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951, requested that the Act be amended to formulate further control measures in order to ensure the high level of professional integrity which the profession was striving for.

In terms of clause 1 the Auditor-General now becomes a permanent member of the Board. The Commissioner for Inland Revenue and the Registrar of Co-operatives are also being given their correct designations now. In clause 1 provision is also made for a Registrar of Close Corporations, who will be one of the seven persons from whom the Minister of Finance will make his appointments to the board.

The standing committee experienced no problems with clause 2. In terms of this clause it is provided that transport and subsistence allowances paid to certain members of the Board, shall be refunded directly to the Treasury, instead of to the Minister of Finance.

The Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Bill is striving to keep the qualifications for articles as high as possible. In terms of clause 3 the board is able to prescribe syllabuses in respect of examinations for clerks. Clause 4 prohibits the board from registering any person as an accountant or auditor if he has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment or to a fine exceeding R300. Because of the general increases in fines this amount was, of course, increased from R50 to R300.

I think many hon members will want to take cognisance of the fact that in order to eliminate petty professional jealousy, the standing committee reached consensus and decided not to comply with the board’s request that an accountant or auditor may lay a charge against a colleague for improper conduct with the board.

Clause 6 provides that partnerships need no longer give full particulars of all partners on their letterheads, but merely particulars of managing directors and so on.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting the amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon member Mr Douw and hon members of the standing committee who made a contribution. We also agreed to the omission of clause 5. I must say, the auditors’ profession is really an asset to South Africa. We are very proud of them and the role which they play in ensuring good accounting practices and control in South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill provides for the privatisation of a section of the SATS. I think it represents a healthy step away from the monopoly of the SATS to privatise some of its lines. When one looks at this privatisation of the monopoly that is the SATS, however, one fears that it is going to be another monopoly that is going to pass into other White hands. This causes us quite a problem. When any section of the transport system is privatised, it should be done on an advertisement basis. It should not be done on a discussion basis with any particular group. They should not call people in and try to convince them to take over a certain section of the line. It should be advertised so that everybody can have the chance to decide whether or not they want to be part of the SATS.

Privatising a section of the transport services would put the economy on a more sound footing, which would be welcome. I want to stress once again, however, that this should be done for South Africans, and not only for one particular race group, as is the case in this instance. The line that is being privatised at the moment, has been negotiated for a long time. They are just waiting for the Bill to be passed so that the deal can be concluded. I say this must be done by means of an advertisement and not negotiation.

People have to look at the method in which they privatise any section of the transport services. It must not be speeded up. We have to look at it very carefully. We have to privatise those sections we need to. We must not speed up the process, otherwise we are going to have a problem in the end.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. I think it is important to go into the history of the Bill in order to see what led to its introduction.

First of all, as my hon colleague mentioned, the SATS is required to compete in the transport market of today. I think, therefore, that it was essential for the SATS to take this particular step. Looking at the losses the SATS has suffered thus far, I think privatisation is the call of the day.

It is estimated that the SATS operated the Port Shepstone-Harding line at an annual loss of approximately R6,5 million. In order for the SATS not to continue shouldering this loss, the line was closed approximately two years ago. However, one now also has the problem of the assets lying there and deteriorating further. I believe the value of the assets is between R2 million and R4 million—this is a negotiable figure because the private company, the Alfred County Railway Committee, disputed it—and it was important for the SATS either to allow the privatisation of this particular line or to operate this service again. Should the SATS have decided to operate the service, it would still have had to shoulder that loss. Therefore, in order to cut its losses, it was important to the SATS to take the decision to privatise this line.

This is an important piece of legislation for the following reasons: Firstly, it encourages privatisation; secondly, it enables the SATS to cut its losses; and thirdly, it is important for the SATS to have this piece of legislation, because it gives the SATS the legal right to privatise this line. Therefore, we support this measure.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

The Bill provides for the amendment of section 9 of Act 65 of 1981. In terms of clause 1 of the Bill, section 9 of the South African Transport Services Act, 1981, is being amended by the insertion, after subsection (27), of the following subsections:

The reference here is to the Alfred County Railway Committee—

Clause 2 provides the amendment of section 10 of the South African Transport Services Act, 1981, by the insertion, after paragraph (d) of subsection (1), of the following paragraph:

The railway line referred to, the Port Shepstone-Harding branch line, was closed to rail traffic as far back as November 1986.

Due to the competitive nature of the activities of the SATS, this line has become unproductive. Several branch lines of the Railways have been closed down and this line was one of them. This is also an historic line, since it is the last remaining narrow gauge line in the province of Natal, and in view of this, the Alfred County Railways Committee approached the SATS with the request that it be allowed to take over this line from them. The primary purpose was to encourage tourism and to maintain the line.

When this Bill becomes law, certain obligations of the SATS in connection with the operation of that line will pass to the Alfred County Railway Committee. As hon members know, the Railways has rights in respect of agricultural land which is traversed by railway lines, and when this transfer takes place, those rights will be transferred to the private company.

The standing committee discussed this Bill very thoroughly, and in the light of what my colleagues have said about privatisation and deregulation, we gladly support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon members for Klipspruit West and Bishop Lavis, as well as the hon member for Vredendal, for the support they have given to the Second Reading of this Bill. It was not a controversial matter on the standing committee, of course, and I am sure hon members were able to have a thorough discussion of the whole principle of the privatisation of certain lines and to put the necessary questions to the SATS.

I shall come back later to some of the remarks made by the hon member for Klipspruit West. In general, however, I just want to say that this legislation originally dealt with the Port Shepstone-Harding branch line only, but after the Cabinet and the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs had considered the matter in a wider context, it was recommended that we should not deal only with this line, but that we should produce a general enabling Act. This is not the only branch line, but it is certainly a unique line because it is a narrow gauge line. In terms of this legislation, if any company, individual or association were to come forward in future and if it were deemed advisable to privatise a line in this way, the SATS would have the power to do so. This Bill encompasses much more than the Port Shepstone-Harding branch line, therefore.

I am not quite sure what the distance between Port Shepstone and Harding is—I believe it is only about 120 km—but the questions asked by the hon member for Klipspruit West are important, of course.

†The hon member remarked that this might lead to a monopoly by a White company.

If one were to look at the background to this particular issue, one would see that nobody was interested in the privatisation of this particular line. However, the Alfred County Railway Committee approached Transport Services and suggested that they would be prepared to privatise this particular line. They were, in fact, doing pioneering work in this field.

I should also like to point out to the hon member for Klipspruit West that the agreement entered into between Transport Services and the Alfred County Railway Committee is valid for a period of five years only. However, both parties expressed the wish that provision be made in the agreement for the life of the agreement to be extended if, after the expiration of this period, both parties were prepared to do so. That is part of the agreement too.

They have an option.

Exactly, they have an option. That does not mean, however, that the Alfred County Railway Committee will again be the organization which will run this particular line after the expiration of the five-year period. Therefore, I do not think there is the slightest suggestion that this could lead to a form of monopoly in future. Surely, Sir, it would be open. There are many companies in South Africa today that employ all population groups— Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. Surely in time to come any one of these groups could apply to the Government for privatisation. If the SATS decides to privatise a particular line, any private company can come forward with tenders, regardless of who the shareholders or directors may be.

Sir, do not think for one moment that because we are passing this particular Bill, a whole lot of people will suddenly become interested in the privatisation of railway lines.

*There cannot be many branch lines in South Africa that have the advantages of an interesting history as well as scenic beauty which would generate widespread interest in privatising and making money. May I add—I do not know whether hon members who are sitting here or who served on the standing committee are aware of this—that we are affording them considerable opportunities. After a year or two, the contribution they make will also increase. It still depends, therefore, on how well they are able to carry out the task and how profitable it will be for the group or committee concerned. The chances that this may develop into a monopoly are not great and it will not easily happen.

†The hon member made the point that one should rather advertise this sort of thing instead of negotiating about it. Certainly, that is something that could be borne in mind if at some time in the future something of this nature were to come up again.

*I do not consider this very likely, however, because there are not so many lines that we are interested in privatising. We would like to privatise, but I do not think the private sector is very likely to come forward. This is a narrow gauge line; it is not a normal gauge line such as our other branch lines. The chances of people coming forward are not great. However, we hope that this will in fact happen in future.

Since this is pioneering work, we want to wish these people every success and we hope they will find that it pays dividends in the long run. Furthermore, we hope that the SATS will also profit by it.

It is a new development, and it could have many positive results. They are going to give their own colours and their own name to their trains. There will be no connection with ours, and one will be particularly interested to see how this private organisation is going to operate this line, how they are going to schedule trains, how they are going to treat their staff, and how efficiently all this will be done. One hopes that they will be successful. I thank hon members for the support they have given to this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether, if the lines are not run profitably, the Government will look at subsidising that group. I should just like an answer on that.

No, Sir. As far as I can recollect—and I have read the memorandum of agreement—there can be no talk of subsidising. This is privatisation we are dealing with, and these people will obviously have to look after themselves. Moreover, this agreement can only be rescinded if both parties are prepared to rescind it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Order! I have, at his request, granted the hon member for Durban Suburbs the opportunity to give an explanation in terms of Rule 133. The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

Mr Speaker, according to his Hansard the hon member Mr Lockey stated during his speech in respect of Order No 15 on the Order Paper dated 15 February 1988 that I had, first of all, sat in on the meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid on 1 February as a substitute for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and secondly, that I had supported Bill B9 of 1988, which deals with the extension of the borders of the independent states. Sir, I say both those statements are false. At no time whatsoever since the inception of this committee in July 1986 to date—and that includes 1 February this year—have I taken part in its deliberations. I was still in Durban on that day and I only left Durban for Cape Town on 4 February 1988.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, the Foreign States Immunities Act was promulgated in 1981 and amended in 1985—at least, one paragraph was amended—and now it is, of necessity, coming up again for slight amendment in 1988. It is one of those Acts that will require amendment from time to time, according to changing circumstances, and for the sake of clarity.

The Bill before us is one that deals with the technical details regarding certain relations between the five independent states. I say “five” because it involves the RSA, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.

The principle that a sovereign state cannot institute legal proceedings in its own courts against another state is more clearly defined in the proposed amendments. I should like to illustrate to hon members what I mean by this.

Normally there is a right of interest included in an attachment, eg if an individual or firm has a dispute with a foreign state, property or rights belonging to the individual or the firm may be attached. In the case of agreements between states this differs, except in the case of commercial transactions.

Certain sections are being further amended by the deletion of the word “foreign”. This has the paradoxical effect of including South Africa as one of the other states. I refer to sections 9(l)(a) and 10(2)(b). We have no quarrel with these corrections and improvements.

Sections 13 and 17 of the principal Act are being amended simply to substitute the words “received by” with the words “delivered to” in cases in which one country serves legal documents on another country. This is being done simply to make the time or dates of the serving of such legal documents more accurate and exact and more easily determinable.

The amendments are intended to fall in line with international law which stipulates that the property, rights and interests of a foreign state—I am referring specifically to the amendment to section 14—may not be attached to confirm the jurisdiction of a court. We fully support the proposed amendments to the Act.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Wentworth for his contribution. It is very clear to me that he made a thorough study of the subject, and I must congratulate him as it is not an easy subject. It is one of the most complex pieces of legislation on our Statute Books. I also want to thank the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid for the way in which they dealt with this measure. I am aware of the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs does not very often deal with legislation in these Chambers, but I am very pleased that it was possible to give the specific standing committee some work to do.

*Sir, I think the hon member for Wentworth will agree with members of this committee that it was very interesting to make a study of this very complex subject. The second reading speech has been circulated and hon members who take an interest in the subject have been able to study it since yesterday. It is interesting to note that the piece of legislation that has been discussed here today is for the most part the result of the activities of the multilateral technical committee of SECOSAF, the umbrella organisation formed between South Africa—the hon member for Wentworth referred to this—and the TBVC countries in order to bring about uniformity in legislation which is applicable to them all. The intention is that Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and Venda will pass similar legislation this year. The hon member for Wentworth has explained the whole situation.

I should like to mention one or two additional matters, however. The principal Act is concerned with situations where an inhabitant of the Republic—a person or a company—institutes legal proceedings against a foreign state in South African courts. As a result of the rule of international law that one sovereign state does not exercise any authority over another, a state cannot normally institute legal proceedings against another state in its own courts or allow such proceedings to be instituted. The problem was that this principle was not clearly stated in the principal Act of 1981, to which the hon member referred. The position is now being rectified in terms of clause 1 of this Bill. This is the most important point in this whole amending Bill.

The hon member also referred to the deletion of the word “foreign” in a few sections. This, too, is simply being done to clarify the matter.

I want to make one last point. In terms of international law, the property of a foreign state is not subject to attachment to found or confirm the jurisdiction of a court. This includes not only the property, but also the rights and interests of a state. An example of this would be the rights of a state in respect of money or other assets to which it is entitled, but which are still in the possession of a third party. In this connection, the situation is being rectified by clause 5 of the amending Bill, and all ambiguity is being removed.

I should like to thank the hon member for Wentworth for his contribution. I congratulate him on his able speech.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill envisages increasing the fines prescribed in the Gambling Act, 1965, for the contravention of the offences mentioned therein.

The object of these adjustments is twofold. Firstly, the depreciation in the value of money since 1965, when the present fines were enacted by the adoption of the Act, necessitated an adjustment. Secondly, representations have brought to light that the relevant offences are being committed to an increasing extent, especially in the cities, and that the present prescribed fines are inadequate to combat these offences effectively.

Participation in sports pools, lotteries and games of chance is objectionable, because of the moral and financial implications. These activities give rise to illegalities and malpractices which can threaten the morale, morals and safety of people. In this regard I am referring, for example, to evils such as cheating, liquor and drug abuse, prostitution and the unlawful and violent enforcement of gambling debts, which by their very nature go hand in hand with gambling. The legislature cannot turn a blind eye to this.

The most effective way of combating gambling is to discourage its main source, namely the participants and visitors, by means of more severe penalties. For these offenders the fine has been increased from R200 to R1 000. More severe penalties shall at the same time be imposed on the organisers and managers. The fine in respect of these offenders, ie the organisers and managers, has therefore been increased from R1 000 to R2 000.

In some circles the question is asked whether any justification still exists for the punishment of gambling offences, in the light of the fact that several casinos have sprung up recently in the independent neighbouring states and are frequented by many South Africans. The existence of gambling opportunities outside the Republic is, however, nothing new. Gambling opportunities already existed in neighbouring states when the Act was promulgated in 1965.

The participation of South Africans in gambling activities in neighbouring countries, where this is legal, in no way detracts from the fact that this is in conflict with the spirit of our Constitution.

I have heard that some people suspect that these increased fines are aimed at educational institutions and welfare organisations, which organise competitions with the object of raising funds. This is definitely not the case, but I wish to issue a friendly warning to such institutions. The provisions of the Act also apply to them and they must behave with the necessary circumspection in order not to contravene these provisions. In terms of the measure competitions requiring ingenuity do not constitute an offence. Organisers must therefore ensure that the contents of the competition are such that the participants will be required to use their ingenuity in order to win.

The authors Milton and Fuller say the following in South African Criminal Law and Procedure, Volume III, pg 403:

Competitions in which easy questions are posed and the answers are, as it were, given to the participant, are therefore possibly in conflict with the provisions of the Act and may constitute a lottery. We can make a game out of asking people such questions in which the answer forms part of questions. In this way we can ask questions which even Mike Schutte could answer.

The Government appreciates and has sympathy for the attempts of some institutions to supplement their funds by means of competitions, but at the same time I must issue a warning that the legislation makes no exceptions and everyone is bound by these provisions. The ball is in the court of these institutions, because they must simply make the competitions more difficult to build in skill.

I wish to reiterate that the increases are not intended specifically to take the said institutions to task but rather to exorcise gambling in general.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister has set out the aims of this Bill briefly. It is a very short Bill, as we can see. What is important, however, is that the offences created by the Gambling Act, No 51 of 1965, were basically aimed at countering the Irish sweepstakes and the British football pools that we had at that time. Some hon members may remember that hundreds of thousands of rands flowed out of this country because people took part in these Irish sweepstakes or Rhodesian sweepstakes. They even took part in the British football pools. I myself participated in the British football pools before this Bill came along in 1965.

The original Act was thus aimed at something totally different. However, we have retained the original Act without really addressing the problems that we are confronted with in this country today. The hon the Minister has explained what motivated the introduction of the Bill before us today, but I should like the hon the Minister to have another look at that Bill in toto so that the offences that prevail today can be addressed.

He has the right in terms of the definition clause to define certain lotteries. He has mentioned the problems encountered by the churches and schools, but I should like him to go back to the Act for legalising art unions—it is a pre-Union Act—whereby certain art items were allowed to be raffled with the consent of the Governor General.

Fahfee?

No, not Fahfee. Fahfee is out. On the other hand, it is a “national sport” in the townships, so maybe it is in! [Interjections.]

The 1965 Act was a consolidation of more than 21 laws, dating as far back as 1860.

We have other problems today. We have raised the moral issue of the poor churchman who organises a raffle for a sheep and who may, in doing so, be contravening the law. The poor principal and his schoolteachers may also be contravening the law by issuing raffle tickets. Why cannot those institutions apply to the Minister to carry on with those activities? We would, in effect, be “decriminalising” church raffles and school raffles as well as certain activities of sports clubs. We would not then be arguing on moral grounds. On moral grounds it could be argued that we have created the homelands and independent states where gambling is rife.

If the authors Milton and Fuller were to look at the, South African horseracing industry today, they would say that that is not a game of skill but a game of absolute chance, as can be seen by the pay-out in yesterday’s Pick 6.

What was the pay-out?

I do not know. I merely saw the article in the newspaper. I do not gamble on the horses. [Interjections.]

Horseracing, in my opinion, is a form of gambling. It is exempted, however, because it represents millions of rands’ revenue in the form of tax. Now we want to trap the poor preacher and the poor principal and make them criminals. Can we not find some way around that so that these people whom the hon the Minister referred to as “treading on dangerous ground” need not tread on dangerous ground?

As I said initially, the 1965 Act was aimed at eliminating sweepstakes and other forms of gambling. That is why advertisements in the newspapers were banned. What do we find, however, when we open Rapport and the Sunday Times? We find Bop Bonus Bonds advertised. Are those publishers not committing a criminal offence? If so, why have they not been prosecuted? After all, the law states “in the Republic and elsewhere”. I think, therefore, that the hon the Minister will have to look at whether or not these newspapers are contravening the law by publishing the results of the Bop Bonus Bonds or soliciting prospective buyers of those bonds. What is wrong in the homelands or the independent states is wrong in South Africa as well.

I am glad that the old ladies who play gin rummy and the old people who play bridge for 10 cents per 100 points are not affected by this law at all.

It is surprising that …

It is surprising that the hon member has made a noise. If Mr Speaker were here, he would have been as quiet as a mouse. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon member Mr Lockey, had better watch it.

†I support the increase in fines for the reason that the monetary value has depreciated over the years. During the previous debate last year I said certain forms of gambling should be legalised, and I still say so, because in that way more revenue can flow into the State coffers.

Mr Chairman, we must realise that section 8 of this Act has not been amended since 1965. This is the first time in the past 23 years, therefore, that the Minister responsible for this matter has come forward to propose an increase in fines.

I want to say, Sir, that I cannot agree with the hon member for Border that this Bill sets a trap for schools, churches and welfare organisations. The spirit of this Bill is not to affect those organisations. In fact, long before it was publicised in newspapers that schools and churches would no longer be able to run their raffles, this Bill was being drafted. Perhaps, however, the hon the Minister could consider amending this legislation in the near future so that schools, churches and welfare organisations are exempted, because in terms of the Bill in its present form these institutions can be just as guilty as other parties.

Perhaps I am of the old school but I am against gambling in any form. I am even of the opinion that if the hon the Minister were to come here and ask us to raise the amount from R2 000 to R4 000, we should support him.

Mr Chairman, we have no problems with this measure. I am satisfied with the fact that this fine has been increased.

However, I want to give a little attention to dice. [Interjections.] Matters have deteriorated badly in the townships. It is now an everyday occurrence to see people congregated around a corner lamppost to “nick a dice”. [Interjections.] There is also the problem that the onus of proof has become very difficult for the police, because it is laid down how and where one must be standing, and how near one must be and whether one was participating in the game.

Gambling has now gone further and one even comes across it in houses and in backyards where people erect shacks and gamble right through the night. The person who wins the “pool” usually ends up being stabbed. It is like a shebeen. As the hon the Minister has said, it is the source of all manner of malpractices such as drug dealing and so on. For that reason I hope that by means of this legislation we will be able to eliminate the problem we are experiencing in the townships.

The big problem here is that the young people become involved and are trapped in this whirlpool. I once went to Sun City and was shocked out of my wits when I saw how many children were involved. Once gambling is in a person’s blood, he is hooked and he hopes and believes like the people who bet on the horses hope and believe that a particular race and a particular horse will bring them luck.

I am satisfied with this Bill and believe that the fine will definitely serve as a significant deterrent.

Mr Chairman, this was a very interesting debate and it seems to me we could even have got a few tips if the debate had lasted much longer. [Interjections.] In my time I have defended one or two people and with a great measure of success, because this is a very difficult onus of proof, particularly in terms of the legislation which applied at that stage. I am talking about the legislation prior to 1965.

What are we dealing with here? We are actually dealing only with the fine or punishment. The principle is not at issue. Owing to the pressure of inflation we are being asked to increase the fine. The punishment itself has only one important objective, namely to serve as a deterrent. Nowadays one is no longer deterred by a fine of a few hundred rand. Consequently the fine is being increased to R1 000 for the individual participant and to R2 000 for the organiser. That is as far as we are going for the moment, but I think hon members will agree that so much has been said about this legislation today that we shall very definitely have to take another look at it. There are definitely two schools of thought present in this House, but it seems to me the stronger of these, the one held by the governing party, is that we must not allow a spirit of making easy money in circumstances which do not promote productivity, to take hold. The basis of this legislation is that we do not want a spirit to take hold among our young people that one can make money without working. Consequently we want to take steps against this.

Apart from that facet, there is also the moral issue. Some people become poorer while others become richer. The people who know how to throw the dice become richer and those who do not know become poorer and eventually we come to the enforcement of debts. In this connection I am thinking of the Mafia in America where debts are enforced through the barrel of a gun or pistol.

We do not want that in this country. In view of this we are acceding to the request that the punishments be made more severe. I received strong support in the House for more severe punishments. I am going to try to ascertain whether we should not include in the Act the authority to increase the punishments from time to time by notice in the Gazette.

Hear, hear!

Just listen to that. I hope it is recorded in Hansard. If we do that we will in my opinion be acting correctly. The spirit in this debate is very good. I really did not expect to get such strong support for the legislation in this House and I want to express my appreciation for that.

I now come back to a few points. I want to point out to the hon member for Bishop Lavis that section 6 indeed covers the entire matter of games of chance involving dice and other technical aids. Man, with all his clever tricks, will soon discover other aids if we insert dice in the legislation now. Section 6 is general enough to deal with dice and any other instruments one can use to ascertain who is a winner in a game of chance. I think that is adequate for the moment.

The hon member is quite correct that the onus of proof rests very heavily on a person who is caught under specific circumstances. It is in fact difficult for the State to prove that a person was involved in gambling if the instruments are all lying on the table in disarray. If everything is on the table, no one accepts responsibility. It is therefore best to create an onus of proof which makes it easier for the State to reach a point where the person must give an explanation. This legislation is swarming with presumptions we created in order to make the onus of proof easier for the State. The State is not apologising. It is a very difficult field. One can very easily win a couple of rand while wearing out the elbows of one’s jacket on a shop counter, and discuss affairs of state at the same time. If someone suddenly arrives on the scene and one says one was discussing affairs of state and has just made a donation to a party, who can argue with one about that? I therefore think we must accept this.

I now come to the hon member for Bonteheuwel. If I understood him correctly, I agree with him. The amending Bill is definitely not intended to get at schools and other institutions when they want to collect funds. On the contrary, I want to go out of my way to say that this is certainly not the intention of this amending Bill. I read in a newspaper that a member of another House made this statement and I shall discuss this with him. On the basis of the audi alteram partem rule I shall, however, not dispute this with him now. He suggested, however, that this was intended as a trap. Fortunately the hon member for Border afforded me the opportunity to deal with this matter. I shall now debate this matter with that hon member. The fact remains that that is certainly not the case. It has, however, become increasingly noticeable that competitions are drawn up in which questions are asked which are supposed to decide the winner, but the answer forms part of the question. A simple example would be: How old is Miriam if she was 21 last year? It is so easy. It is not difficult to count and arrive at the answer, 22.

My advice to these organisations is the following: For heaven’s sake, make it difficult! Build expertise into it so that it cannot be said that it is a game of chance. It has come to my attention, for example, that one competition organiser suggested that if one dialled a specific telephone number one would actually be given the answer. I do not think that is a competition.

I am appealing to all institutions. It is not only our schools who are involved in this. It seems to me that a large number of organisations with different objectives and goals are involved. One wants to address all these good friends who have the best of intentions and ask them to make things a little more difficult. One appeals to them to build expertise into their competitions so that one need not even think of this Act when it comes to them. One tells them that one does not want to do this to them, because the legislation is not intended for them. It is certainly not meant for our schools, and I want to emphasise this strongly.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon member for Border that one cannot legalise an illegality by giving ministerial permission, because then one has utter confusion. Either one declares a matter legal and it is generally legal or one declares it illegal. However, it is undesirable for the legislature to declare a matter illegal, gambling for example, and then expect the Minister to state what is permissible and what is not. Horseracing was mentioned as an example. Whatever the ratio for such legislation may be, legislation with regard to horseracing is original legislation which concerns horseracing only. Sir, horseracing has become an entire industry, more than simply what takes place on the racecourse. It does not only concern an industry which is worth millions of rand to the country in respect of employment opportunities. One need only think of the number of people employed by those stables. One need only think of how many families are dependent on the income of the trainers and the people who groom the horses. When I think of what is invested in the horseracing industry, apart from what happens on the racecourse, I want to say today that the racecourse is the tip of the iceberg. It has become one of the largest industries in the country, and it legally—and I want to emphasise the word “legally” very strongly—feeds literally thousands of people who are dependent on it. This means that there is a big difference between this industry and any other kind of industry, in which people simply live off the misfortunes of others.

I therefore do not think that one can draw comparisons in this connection. I find justification for the industry. In any case, generally speaking the hon member supported the Bill and I thank him for that.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In consequence of the general strategy for the implementation of the Government’s decision on deregulation, the provisions of the Boxing and Wrestling Control Act, 1954, were reviewed. Let me say at once that the provisions of the Act do not apply to amateur boxing and wrestling. The provisions apply only to professional wrestling and boxing.

With the exception of professional boxing and wrestling, no sport is subject to statutory regulation. The element of danger in professional wrestling, as it has developed, is not such that special statutory controls are necessary. Against this background the South African National Wrestling Control Board was consulted and it agreed to the deregulation of professional wrestling.

The amending Bill therefore makes provision for the repeal of the provisions in Act 39 of 1954 that relate to professional wrestling. The Act contains a provision that prohibits women from participating in wrestling and boxing, and this is being retained. I am sure I need not elaborate on the reasons for retaining this provision in the Act.

Similarly, the provision that vests the police and magistrates with the authority to forbid or stop wrestling and boxing bouts in certain circumstances is being retained.

Because statutory control of professional wrestling is being abolished, provision is made in clause 16 for the manner in which the assets of the National Wrestling Control Board and the provincial wrestling control boards will be disposed of. The National Wrestling Control Board, with the concurrence of the Minister of National Education, will determine in what manner this will take place. Obviously care will be taken to ensure that these assets are used constructively and for a good purpose. The effect of the amendments is that professional wrestling, as is the case with other professional sports, will be controlled entirely by the private sector. As is the case with other professional sports, it will be up to those persons who have an interest in professional wrestling to establish a body to control this professional sport.

Sir, the abolition of statutory control over professional boxing also received attention. However, the South African National Boxing Control Board put forward convincing arguments as to why professional boxing should continue to be statutorily regulated. They advanced two particular reasons.

In the first place, the health risk in professional boxing has resulted in institutions being created throughout the world to ensure that boxers are effectively protected. Secondly, the South African National Boxing Control Board has been affiliated to the WBA for many years, despite periodic problems. According to the constitution of the WBA, any body legally constituted to organise, control and/or exercise supervision over professional boxing is entitled to permanent membership of the WBA, after complete documentation has been supplied confirming that it is a properly authorised body and is constituted to organise, control and/or exercise supervision over professional boxing within a specific area or country. The documentation to be supplied must be in the form of subordinate legislation or a law passed and published by a city council or municipality, State, provincial or national government.

†In the light of the requirements for membership set by the WB A in its constitution, the removal of statutory control over professional boxing would mean that the SA National Boxing Control Board would not qualify for membership of this body.

In the light of these requirements, as well as of the health risk that professional boxing entails for boxers, it is proposed that the status quo be maintained as far as professional boxing is concerned.

Sir, I wish, however, to refer to some of the amendments in the Bill that have a bearing on professional boxing. Clause 6(1) provides that the SA National Boxing Control Board may, at the request of the control body with which it is affiliated, exercise any of its functions outside the borders of the Republic.

It is a known fact that the Boxing Control Board officiated at professional boxing tournaments in Bophuthatswana on several occasions.

There is no formal agreement between the Government and the government of Bophuthatswana with regard to the performance by the council of its functions in Bophuthatswana. However, the board has been requested by the President of Bophuthatswana in writing to supervise and exercise control and authority over all professional boxing tournaments that take place in that country. The WBA grants approval for world title fights in Bophuthatswana only if the Boxing Control Board is in control of these tournaments. For this reason clause 6(1) was inserted so that the WBA can make use of the board’s services in neighbouring countries.

Clause 8 makes provision for an increase in the amount of money that the Minister of National Education may advance to the Boxing Control Board from State funds to enable it to carry out its functions. The amount is being increased from one thousand pounds to R10 000. The increase is of a technical nature since the board is financially independent and receives no financial assistance from the State. However, if the board were to ask for financial assistance for one reason or another, such a request would have to be properly substantiated. Financial assistance will be granted only if it is really essential to enable the board to perform its functions. However, in terms of section 10(4) of the Act, any amount of money advanced to the board must be repaid to the State.

Mr Chairman, this Bill, the Boxing and Wrestling Control Amendment Bill, looks at Act 39 of 1954, the Boxing and Wrestling Control Act, and introduces certain amendments.

It deals, firstly, with the control of professional wrestling. This is now being deregulated and left in the hands of the private sector, with the proviso that the participation of women in the sport is still prohibited and that the holding of contests can be stopped or forbidden by the authorities where these are regarded not to be in the public interest.

In all other respects the control of wrestling passes over to the SA National Wrestling Control Board and its provincial control boards. The decision in favour of deregulation was taken after discussion with the SA National Wrestling Control Board, which was in agreement with the principle involved.

However, with regard to the control of professional boxing a different situation obtains. The SA National Boxing Control Board is affiliated to the World Boxing Association—the WBA. Permanent membership of the WBA is dependent on the organisation concerned being under the legal control of a national governing authority. Therefore, in order to maintain this affiliation, boxing control boards in South Africa, on provincial or national level, must be sanctioned by State control.

The amending Bill, then, does just this and extends the powers of the SA National Boxing Control Board, strengthening the board’s legal status as a body corporate. Provincial boxing control boards also obtain this legality of status in order to comply with the conditions for affiliation as set by the WBA. In this way South African boxers can lay claim to world boxing titles, and are doing so.

The Bill gave rise to considerable discussion at standing committee meetings, but was finally accepted without amendments. Note was taken of the representations made concerning particular problems experienced in the relationship between the SA National Boxing Control Board and individual boxers and promoters. The standing committee has recommended that the Department of National Education consider these representations in depth and that any further amendments deemed necessary be submitted to Parliament.

Sir, we support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, hon members can deduce for themselves from the speeches of the hon the Minister and other speakers that this was not a very contentious amending Bill. I think we shall be better off if we apply the amendments in practice. [Interjections.]

It was surprising to see how many of us were acquainted with the laws controlling these two sports. With these amendments which are now being effected, it is clearly illustrated for the first time that the two divisions in the boxing world, namely amateur and professional boxing, differ totally when it comes to their control. Whereas the Government controlled this matter in the past, particularly as regards professional boxing, it is now being almost entirely dissociated from it. In future professional boxing will be controlled by the respective boards. This is to be welcomed because the World Boxing Association requires this as regards professional boxing. I am glad that the hon the Minister also mentioned that here this afternoon. This is also mentioned in this amendment. [Interjections.]

I am not very happy about clause 8.

Order! I would be grateful if hon members would please pay attention while the hon member is making his speech.

I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would tell me in his reply why there has always been a proviso that the Government may promote sports up to a maximum of R10 000. This is a lot of money. I wonder how this took place in the past.

I also want to talk about wrestling. I am a little unhappy about the abolition of statutory control over wrestling. One must admit that nowadays wrestling has become a mere exhibition—not only in South Africa, but throughout the world.

Thousands of rands are made by the promoters of this sport. It is therefore gratifying that the Government can still allow professional wrestling to go its own way.

Mr Chairman, in America—and South Africa is so fond of copying them—wrestling matches involving women take place. This afternoon I want to issue a warning here that we must protect the dignity of women in South Africa. To me it would be a sad day if my mother or my wife were to enter the wrestling ring. [Interjections.] I am glad that the Government has prohibited this. I would far rather watch political wrestling on TV.

Nevertheless, I am glad that the committee agreed in toto never to introduce wrestling for women. I know there are promoters who are just waiting to exploit women for their own purposes. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I want to say that if all committee discussions on legislation could go as smoothly as was the case with this piece of legislation, our committees would get their work done far more quickly. I whole-heartedly agree that this piece of legislation was necessary.

Mr Chairman, I want to emphasise this was one of the very few occasions when the committee had a piece of legislation in front of it in which there was no suggestion of its having a racist content. I think this is the main reason why the discussion of the legislation went so smoothly in the committee. I am not saying this to pick a quarrel with the hon the Minister.

The basic goal of the legislation is to channel statutory provisions for control over professional wrestling and boxing in two separate directions. Whereas in the past the State exercised parallel control over boxing and wrestling, we now see that wrestling, which in the past was under the control of the Minister of Sport and Recreation, is virtually free of all State control. The motivation for this is that wrestling has become increasingly exhibition-orientated, whereas in the past the emphasis fell on hard sporting competition. On the other hand, boxing still involves hard sporting competition which justifies and requires a degree of State control. In this case we are also dealing to a certain extent with deregulation and we welcome it, because there are so many regulations in our country that many people are hampered by them.

In future we shall have to outline the remaining State control in boxing and keep a careful eye on it. Grave concern is emerging regarding the effects which boxing can have on a boxer in the long term. I therefore want to request that the degree of State control which applies to boxing at present should really remain in force, for the sake of cases in which boxing could be detrimental.

In addition the Bill also provides that the participation of women in wrestling is still controlled and prohibited by the State. This is the only facet of professional wrestling which will be controlled by the State in future. In my opinion this is undoubtedly essential. I in no way want to prejudice the freedom of women, but I want to see to it that women are not trapped by the masculine misconception that women should be misused as public sex symbols. I am basing my argument on a survey regarding topless women bathers—this is for the sake of the stomach muscles—which appeared in Rapport of 14 February 1988. I see that 20% of the men in South Africa were in favour of this, compared with a mere 12% of women who were in favour of it. From this I deduce that the largest percentage of women are opposed to their femininity being exploited in a carnal manner for men’s pleasure. There is a degree of resistance to this. We as legislators must recognise this and act protectively.

In contrast 20% of men are in favour of topless bathing and some also suggested certain provisos. They enjoy or derive endless pleasure out of seeing women humiliated. This cannot be condoned. Some of them have ridiculous provisos as well. Some also had racist provisos such as that White topless bathers should not appear in front of non-White men. All this points to silliness and racist attitudes which one certainly cannot describe as healthy.

For that reason we make it clear in this Bill that we totally disapprove of the participation of women in wrestling.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Natal Mid-East, Esselen Park and Berg River for their support. I am glad that we are agreed on this matter.

Hon members need not worry about the R10 000, because the Boxing Control Board is financially very self-sufficient at the moment. It is, however, always a good thing to retain such an authorisation, because one never knows when the day may come when a little temporary assistance may be needed. We are therefore retaining the principle that a little financial support may be given when valid reasons for this are advanced. However, we shall then have to use money from the appropriation and answer to Parliament for this. Hon members will therefore be able to criticise us if we did so unnecessarily.

Reference was made to political wrestling teams. Unfortunately we cannot totally deregulate the political wrestling process. We must stick to the rules and retain referees like you, Mr Chairman, to ensure that the political wrestling bouts do not degenerate. However, as regards professional wrestling, I am very glad that members are unanimous that we can leave them to their own devices. Tennis manages its own affairs, golf manages its own affairs and every sport must see to it that the quality of sport which it offers the public is such that television viewers and spectators can still enjoy and appreciate it. This legislation we are now passing places a tremendous responsibility on wrestling promoters who present professional wrestling. I want to emphasise very strongly that in my opinion it is in the interests of the public, in their own interests and in the interests of wrestling, that like other sports, they organise themselves properly so that the public can be sure that control is being exercised internally. In this way the public can go to tournaments knowing that their interests will also be taken care of.

I am very glad that hon members placed so much emphasis on the retention of the clause regarding wrestling by women. As the hon member for Esselen Park said, the dignity of women is undoubtedly a matter of very great importance to us in South Africa. One can learn a great deal from America, but one must not learn too much from America. One thing we can definitely do without is the cheapening of the female body, a trend which has developed in America and elsewhere. I see this Bill as further proof of our determination to maintain the dignity of women.

What about Treurnichtwrestling?

Treurnicht-wrestling is on the agenda and that wrestling match will undoubtedly start soon, with reasonable rules applying. [Interjections.]

I want to express my thanks for the support of hon members and I also want to thank the members of the standing committee for their hard work and the thorough way in which they studied this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw your attention to the following matter. During the course of the debate on the State Land Disposal Amendment Bill the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, by way of interjection and questioning, made reference to the fact that one or several members of this House were either party to or involved in the affairs of a building contractor in such a manner that it led to this contractor going bankrupt and/or committing suicide. I refer you to the unrevised Hansard of 16 February 1988. These remarks and/or questions were directed towards hon members sitting on this side of the House. In addition, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council insinuated that I was responsible for electoral documents from my constituency going missing. He had also made this insinuation on a previous occasion. I regard this as a serious reflection on my integrity as it is indeed tantamount to alleging that I have committed a crime. In the circumstances I would appreciate your ruling, after a perusal of Hansard, on whether or not such remarks and/or questions are unparliamentary and also reflect upon the dignity of hon members of this House and upon my dignity.

Order! Although the hon member for Springfield was kind enough to inform me beforehand of his intention to raise this matter, he will agree that this matter warrants serious consideration, also in the light of continuous allegations and personal attacks from both sides of the House, and that I need time to consider my ruling.

As the Chairman pleases.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the market issue is a burning issue in our community in Natal and it is, in fact, a national issue. To capitalise it, it becomes an international issue. The original Durban Indian Market burnt down a decade ago. It was one of the greatest tourist attractions in Natal, but when it burnt down Durban’s so-called City Council, with progressive membership, denied the poor people the right of a new market. In the greater Durban area there are about half a million Indian people who contribute the majority of the rates in this area, yet they are denied the right of a simple market.

That market was established about 80 years ago and our poor people made a living out of it. However, the Durban City Council continues to deny this to the Indians.

I want to ask today: Is that justice? Where do we go from here? When the market burned down, the Government was responsible for the temporary accommodation of the storeholders and they have been in that temporary accommodation for the past 10 years. We have been promised time and again by the Government that the Oriental Plaza will be built for our community. To this day, however, nothing has been done. How do we face those half a million people in the greater Durban area?

What do we enjoy from the Durban City Council? The Durban City Council—the so-called Progs—are fighting for one man, one vote in this country.

Pink liberals!

What are they doing for us? They are squeezing the Indian community out of Durban. [Interjections.] We have plenty to say here about a minor issue such as the market. [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at the Durban beachfront development, which outsiders come and enjoy. The council has R200 million to spend on that area for outsiders—people from the Transvaal and the Cape. For whom are they doing this? For the Whites. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Well, the Cape has some good facilities. We shall leave the Cape out of it. [Interjections.] For whom are they doing this whilst their own ratepayers are suffering?

What has the Government done about this? The Government has remained silent on this issue, too. It is working hand in glove with the Durban City Council. The Government has remained silent for 10 years.

The South African Indian Council took up this matter but its pleas fell on deaf ears. Why did we obtain polls of 4% and 10%? It was because of the Government’s attitude, too. I blame both parties. Both of them are at fault in this regard.

As to the issue of the market, we are not asking too much. It is a little thing, a simple little thing. [Interjections.] One should visit the storeholders today and look at the conditions under which they are operating. It is pathetic to see.

At the Durban ice rink, which is enjoyed primarily by the White community, a small rafter came loose and the Durban City Council immediately stepped in and closed it down. The Durban City Council immediately spent money on renovating the building. They did so within three to four weeks. However, look at the premises the storeholders presently occupy. They are disgraceful. What the Durban City Council is doing to my community there, is most disgraceful. What is more, the Government sees what is happening but it is not interested. I want to be honest here today.

The Durban City Council advertised a certain site. Various parties tendered for it. The Storeholders’ Association put in a tender and a White consortium also tendered. A few Indians also tendered, but whose tender was successful?

The White consortium’s.

Yes, the White consortium’s. The land went to them at half the price. [Interjections.] Is that fair? Those stallholders were turned down, although their tender was R1 million higher. What is the difference? Are we not capable of building that plaza?

The difference is our colour.

Are the Indian consortiums incapable of building that plaza? Why should we Indians always pay the price? Why?

In the field of education, we pay the price. When it comes to the Group Areas Act, we pay the price. Why? Why must we pay the price every time? Here we are in Parliament, and still we are paying the price.

We submitted objections to the Durban City Council. The matter was then referred to the province. We appreciate the fact that the province rejected it, because we have our representative there. If we did not have a representative there, they would have drawn the conclusion that it be given to the Whites.

I make a humble appeal here. We are not for asking the whole of South Africa. We are simply asking the Government to put the poor stallholders in their rightful place. The Durban City Council expropriated that land with a view to building a plaza. I want to tell the hon the Minister today that the Government must let us enjoy the prosperity of this country. The Government is talking of reform. Let us start reform at grassroots level.

Let “it” be meaningful.

Let “it” be meaningful. I ask the hon the Minister to intervene in this matter. The Durban City Council is about to readvertise this site. The hon the Minister must put his foot down and stop it. Let our Indian people in Natal enjoy this small facility for which we ask. Today we are in Parliament. If we cannot even ensure these little bits and pieces, why should we participate?

Mr Chairman, I have little or no difficulty with the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Isipingo. He put his point across very clearly and simply and he highlighted the agonies suffered by the community in respect of the market issue and various other related issues. However, I would respectfully differ from him on the course he proposes. Consequently, I would like to move the following as an amendment:

1. (1) to develop the market site for the establishment of market stalls to resettle the stallholders who were affected by fire in the old market;
2. (2) to allocate stalls to other small businessmen; and
3. (3) to ensure that the designing and planning of the new market is such that it will facilitate the sale of the stalls on a sectional title basis.”.

In support of this amendment I would like to highlight a few factors. Insofar as markets are concerned, I believe it is the responsibility and the duty of local authorities to establish markets in their areas. We are aware of the fact that markets all over the country, even in small towns, are provided and run by local authorities, and in many cases subsidised by local authorities, because they are service-oriented and for the benefit of the inhabitants of a particular area. Even if one looks at the Regional Services Councils Act, this is also scheduled as one of the 21 items which could be done on a regional basis, again bringing out the situation that it must be done on the basis of being for the benefit of the community as a whole. I believe that it is a function of local authorities to ensure this.

It is apparent that a market must be established, especially for the affected people. However, it is evident that the local authority in Durban, the Durban City Council, is deliberately frustrating this development by not executing its responsibility in this regard. I therefore submit to the hon the Minister that he should indeed now put pressure on the Durban City Council to perform its function and responsibility.

I do not think that the local authority must now exploit the situation by suggesting that it wants to go on tender in the open market. I want to say with respect that by doing that it will not assist the very people who the Van Eyssen Committee suggested ought to have been assisted in the first instance. What will happen is that major organisations will acquire the site and will put up a normal shopping centre or shopping mall there. This will not promote small businesses or involve the people who are presently involved in activities at that market site.

If the stallholders were to tender for the site one would be putting undue pressure on them. They will have to compete with the conglomerates and the giants in the open market. Obviously, because of their sentimental feelings and their attachment to that particular area, they will be obliged to pay a much higher price. In my opinion this will exclude many of the affected persons. Those who were affected by the fire in the first instance may not be able to afford the rent that will have to be paid because the whole development will be completely out of the reach of the small businessman.

This is why I feel that it is the local authority that should act as the co-ordinator. It is the local authority that should provide the skills, the planning, the designing and the acquisition of capital for the development of that particular market. It is the local authority that should do something about it. If private enterprise undertook the development the small businessmen who have been involved in the market before, will now not be able to survive because rentals—so I am told— will be in the region of R33/sq m, and that will be the minimum rental. Now how can the small hawker or the small trader afford such a rental?

On the one hand the Government spends millions of rand from the taxpayers’ money for the promotion of small businesses and to draw people from the lower echelons into the business world. Millions of rand are spent on this. Here is a golden opportunity to allow the small entrepreneur to enter into and participate in the economy of the country but the Durban City Council is deliberately frustrating that development from taking place.

In my support of this motion I would like to appeal to the Durban City Council to act responsibly in this particular regard. Rather than creating antagonism and conflict, they should try to become more responsible. I believe that the adoption of the motion of the hon member for Isipingo will create tension and conflict between the Durban City Council and other Government departments. There may be some justification in introducing the motion but I think the opportunity should be given to the Durban City Council to act as the co-ordinators to promote small businessmen, rather than to become big estate agents trying to obtain the best price possible in the market.

A possible argument is that we should move towards privatisation and that private enterprise should therefore be created. In my motion I suggest that one can achieve that objective as well. The Durban City Council must first of all develop the site and then it can be privatised on the basis of sectional title. In this way the capital expenditure can be recouped. The Small Business Development Corporation can even be involved in the early stages to ensure that the people get onto their feet. The small businessmen and small entrepreneurs can be promoted in this way.

What is therefore suggested from this side of the House is that conflict should be avoided. What we suggest is morally right and also the function of the local authority, while at the same time satisfying the Government’s own initiative insofar as privatisation is concerned. In my opinion all these demands can be satisfied.

Furthermore, I would like to remove a misnomer. I want to submit that a market can be established for all types of activities from the small vendor such as an icecream seller to much bigger vendors.

I think that what we can achieve there is the blending of cultures. Even the Black small businessman could be brought in, as could the White, Coloured and Indian small businessmen. They could all get together as businessmen. People who do the same work would be drawn together to participate in the economy.

I have heard some figures that are shattering. I heard that one has to look at a capital cost of R14 million minimum for the purposes of development there, and it can go as high as R20 million. I should like to submit that the Durban City Council should build an oriental structure blending with the character of the area and the environment. They should build a simple portal structure, an outerstructure, as one does not have to go for a multistorey structure or sophisticated shop fronts which push up the costs. People should then be allocated space on the floor of that particular large structure. That would create opportunities for the small businessman.

With those words I should like respectfully to submit to the hon the Minister that he should as a matter of urgency call the city council together here and address this issue effectively. He should appeal to them to act responsibly. If they fail to do so, I believe that the big stick must be wielded. I think at this stage this is the last opportunity that we might give them before wielding the big stick.

Mr Chairman, I think that the hon member for Stanger made a very sensible suggestion, but what does he mean by the “big stick”?

Mr Chairman, I think that that question is rhetorical and I do not have to answer it.

Mr Chairman, the Indian market is synonymous with Durban. From its very inception the Indian market in Durban was a focal point of activity in the field of agriculture. I endorse the contribution made by the hon member for Isipingo that not only was it a local attraction but it was a national as well as an international attraction which brought recognition to South Africa as a whole.

The history of the Durban Indian market is that it was destroyed by fire some time in 1973. Immediately some members of the SAIC made representation to the State, and to Minister Horwood who at the time was the Minister of Indian Affairs, for assistance to rebuild the market and to house those stall holders who as a result of the fire were out on the streets and experiencing difficulties.

The State immediately made a sum available to the Durban City Council for the purposes of rebuilding the market. Then followed the Durban City Council’s grand plans for road construction. The best part of the Indian market was interfered with as the roadworks went through the market. As a result of representations made by members of the SAIC at the time, the Minister of Community Development established the Van Eyssen Committee and this committee was given the task of looking at the requirements of the Indian farmers in relation to the market in Durban.

I recall very clearly that the then secretary for Community Development, Mr Louis Fouché, initiated a meeting of the Durban City Council, the Department of Community Development and members of the South African Indian Council. This meeting was held in the Durban City Hall.

Fortunately the meeting was held in three sessions. The first session was chaired by Mr Louis Fouché, the second by the then Mayor of Durban and the third meeting by the then chairman of the Executive of the Indian Council, Dr J Reddy. Consensus was reached that Durban should have an Indian market, but on a grander scale, incorporating the Plaza as a whole.

The Van Eyssen Committee looked at all the alternative sites available for this Plaza as well as the market. The late Dr A Moolla, together with the Executive Chairman Dr Reddy, at that time pointed out to the Van Eyssen Committee that this necessity should be provided for the Indian community as well as the people of Durban as early as possible. Should there be any delay— even 10 years ago Dr Moolla made the point— costs would escalate and therefore eventually the higher costs would be borne by the stallholders who were going to be accommodated.

Therefore I want to say that the State had a responsibility, simply because it was a State decision that the Van Eyssen Committee look at and provide the necessary funds, because at the time they were constructing Plaza’s for displaced Indian traders throughout the country.

Therefore, we on this side of the House believe that the work of the Van Eyssen Committee still remains to be done. What is really disturbing is the lack of co-operation and the hard-line attitude adopted by the Durban City Council. One may argue that the Durban City Council not necessarily, in terms of an ordinance of Natal, is obliged to construct a market; the ordinance reads that they “may” construct a market. However, what needs to be borne in mind is the moral obligation of the Durban City Council to have had on their programme the planning of a market. They very conveniently escaped their responsibility.

The recent events have been that the Durban City Council brought out a brief asking for tenders for a market in the present area bordered by Cathedral Road, Victoria Street and Russel Street.

One needs to understand the motive of the Durban City Council and that motive is simply not to discharge their responsibilities, but pass it on to private enterprise.

Amongst the tenderers were the Durban Indian Market Stallholders’ Association. They brought out a brief as well. However, because the successful tenderer had submitted plans indicating a proper position, structure and architectural aspects of the building, and because the Durban Stallholders’ Association as a result of limited time also brought out a brief which, however, did not show the architectural design of that complex, the Durban City Council found it very convenient to say that the brief of the Durban Stallholders’ Association does not meet with the requirements of the Durban City Council and therefore it should go to the successful tenderer.

I do believe that the Durban City Council has shirked its responsibilities to the Indian ratepayers and the Indian community of Durban. Therefore this motion calls upon this House to examine the many possibilities that are embodied in this motion. We believe that in the absence of any constructive response from the Durban City Council, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who has at heart the constitutional development of the people, must take cognizance of the desire of this House as embodied in the motion. I strongly believe that this is a time when delay is going to be dangerous and costly. The more we delay a decision on the construction of this plaza and market place, the more the costs will escalate, until eventually it may be that the consumer may have to pay part of the escalated cost.

Therefore this side of the House believes that the motion as it appears on the Order Paper has the support of this House.

Mr Chairman, I must agree with the hon member for Isipingo when he says that it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs that 15 years after the market was razed to the ground, this matter of the Indian market in Victoria Street has not …

[Inaudible.]

It was razed, for the edification of the hon member Mr Nowbath, on 16 March 1973.

As I was saying, I want to compliment the hon member for Isipingo for raising this very important subject and for placing this on the Order Paper. I want to say to the hon member that the timing of this motion is most opportune, because I understand that the Durban City Council will be taking decisions in the very immediate future concerning what they consider to be the final resolution of this problem.

I am also pleased that this motion has been directed at the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, since I believe that this matter is well-known to him through his earlier responsibility for Indian Affairs way back in 1974. Quite obviously, this motion is before a Minister who not only has empathy for the Indian cause—I say this most advisedly—but is also well aware of the problems concerning the Indian market.

However, I must disagree with the hon member for Isipingo on how he wishes to see this problem of the Indian market resolved. I fully support the amendment moved by the hon member for Stanger since I believe that the amendment is practical, feasible, and—most important—least susceptible to any abuse by any interested party.

Allow me to place on record that I believe that the history of the Durban City Council and the Indian market is a long, unfortunate story of discrimination, harassment and exploitation since before 16 March 1973, when the market was razed by fire, up to the present time. Hon members must be aware that the Durban City Council was not a whit concerned with the fate or the future of the stallholders when the tragedy struck. I believe it was determined to wipe out the Indian market altogether from Victoria Street. It advanced numerous piffling excuses as to why the market had to go to Chatsworth. In the process, the Durban City Council was not concerned with the tragedy that had struck the families of the stallholders concerned. I believe it resorted to flimsy legal technicalities to shield itself from its clear responsibility to the stallholders and the Indian community on this important matter.

It harassed these helpless people in every conceivable way, using every means in its power to destroy them morally and financially. In this respect I must agree with the hon the Minister of the Budget when he says that they showed a complete lack of any sympathy for the stallholders. This city council also refused obstinately and callously to do anything at all when the market was razed and it employed every possible delaying tactic to prevent the work to commence on the temporary structure which the Government, not the city council, had subsidised with R100 000. I am afraid, that if the Government had not come to the aid of the Indian community at that time, the position of the stallholders would have been a very sorry one indeed, with the city council sitting back and gloating over the luckless fate of the Indian people.

I want to pay tribute and thank this Government for acting in a humane and noble manner. It may surprise some hon members that the PRP believes in constructive criticism. We believe in giving credit where credit is due. Obviously we believe in criticizing constructively as well. In this particular instance we must give credit to the Government of the hon the Minister present in this House for coming to our aid at that time by putting forward an amount of R100 000 for the erection of a temporary structure in Victoria Street, so that those tragically affected stallholders could be accommodated as quickly as possible.

The fire proved that more than 50% of these stallholders really led a hand-to-mouth existence. This is important to consider. Many of them were completely wiped out financially and in other respects as well. Many of them depended on charity to feed themselves and the members of their families. Hon members will recall that a mayoral relief fund was launched for this purpose, which was very well supported by the public. The record of this collection drive does not reflect any single contribution from the Durban City Council itself.

Shame!

In these circumstances, when the original idea of a consortium of stallholders was formulated to build the market, the South African Indian Council correctly decided that in principle the task of erecting the market lay fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Durban City Council. They were and, I believe, are still the owners of the land who, as landlords, derived enormous profits from the letting of the stalls to the Indian tenants over all these many years. The greed of the Durban City Council, in extorting more and more rentals from the market, resulted in the diminution of the size of the stalls so that, at the time when the market was razed, certain stalls were no larger than the size of a table top. The going rental at the time was R1,40 per square foot—far more expensive than it was at the time to rent premises in West Street or even in Eloff Street in Johannesburg.

I also believe that the question raised by the hon the Minister of the Budget as regards the responsibility of the Durban City Council for the erection of this market can be substantiated by the fact that, prior to this, that same city council built another market for use by White stallholders in Warwick Avenue. Therefore the precedent has been set for the Durban City Council to erect markets.

I think it is also apposite to record that history will bear testimony to the fact that the issue of the Indian market was very fully debated here in Cape Town before the Minister of Planning, the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Indian Affairs in September 1971. After this meeting, to which representatives of the Durban City Council and the executive of the Indian Council were invited, a directive was issued by the then Minister of Planning—I believe it was Mr Loots—that the responsibility for the erection of the market lay fairly and squarely in the court of the Durban City Council. That is where I believe it still lies.

May I also record in passing that the Van Eyssen Committee, which was formed to attend to the reconstruction of the market after the fire, had the full support of the community at the time. If I recall correctly, that committee had the full support of people such as Professor Fatima Meer, D.K. Singh, Mr George Singh and others, who stood together with the community for the good of the community, together with members of the Indian council. These progressive leaders did not indulge in the childish practice that we encounter these days among some political leaders, of remaining aloof from those of us who participate in this Chamber for the good of the community. This, Sir, is history. What of the present, and what of the future?

We want to state very emphatically that the concern of this House should be directed primarily towards all those people who were stallholders when that market was razed in 1973 and towards their families, and not towards any person or group of persons who may be seeking to make a fast buck out of their particular predicament at the present time. I should merely like to repeat that I should like to see all those stallholders who previously occupied stalls in that market be fully accommodated in any future market that may be erected on that site.

I have already indicated to this House that I owe my entrance into politics to the fact that the hon the Minister invited me to serve on the President’s Council, I am not so sure whether or not the hon the Minister regrets that now. On the other hand, I am also not sure whether or not I myself regret it. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is, however, that that hon Minister indicated to me that he was a tiger. There is no question about it; he is a tiger. [Interjections.] He said to me: “When you send representatives of the Indian community to me, send me tigers like myself, and not sheep”. [Interjections.] We appreciate the fact that that hon Minister is a tiger and were I in the caucus of the NP—which, either fortunately or unfortunately, I am not—I would support that tiger as well. [Interjections.]

The crux of the matter, as was indicated by the hon member for Stanger, is that we would like to see something being done, not necessarily by this House because we do not believe that this House has jurisdiction over this particular matter, but by the hon Minister concerned, in order to ensure that the Durban City Council does not shirk its responsibility. We believe that the Durban City Council has a responsibility to provide a service, not only to the stallholders and the Indian community, but to all the inhabitants of Durban.

What is more, I believe the hon the Minister has the power to ensure, as the hon member for Isipingo has indicated, that the Durban City Council does not shirk that responsibility. This is the plea from this side of the House, and therefore I fully support the amendment moved by the hon member for Stanger.

Mr Chairman, as one of those who were involved from the inception, ie immediately after the fire destroyed what was known as the Indian Top-market, I think it is important to sketch very briefly the course of events.

The Durban City Council indicated that it was not their responsibility to erect a trading complex, as they categorised the Top-market. Having regard for the fact that so many people were displaced as a result of the fire and taking into account that they had dependents who they supported from the income they received at the market, it was necessary that urgent representations be made to the central Government. Prof Owen Horwood, who was then the Minister of Indian Affairs, set up a meeting here during the holiday. He was so concerned about the matter and particularly the attitude of the Durban City Council that the meeting was held on a nonworking day. Representatives of the Durban City Council were also asked to come to Cape Town for a follow-up to the meeting I had with the Minister.

An amount of R100 000 was made available for a temporary building and the building was constructed very speedily. It was understood that it would last for a duration of three years, by which time the Van Eyssen Committee would be able to set in motion the necessary machinery in order to ensure that a permanent building would be made available, so that these people, some of whom were settled in the temporary building and a large number removed to Chatsworth and given premises at the Westcliff shopping complex, would also be accommodated in the new complex.

The then Minister of Indian Affairs and Community Development, Mr Marais Steyn, and his secretary, a Mr Fouché, visited Durban—I remember very clearly—on a Sunday on their way to a political meeting in, I think, Northern Natal. Mr Steyn made it his duty to visit the market site. He met with the officials and representatives of the market stallholders. Having examined the area likely to be used for this purpose he stated categorically that Durban owed it to the Indian community and the country at large to erect a building there which would ensure that the attraction that was provided by the Indian market would continue and that it was only fair that, the Indian community having made a contribution to the growth and development of Durban, and being in the situation in which they were placed, there should be co-operation on all sides speedily to complete the complex.

Following upon that, a meeting of the Van Eyssen Committee was held and Mr Fouche played the dominant role. On the instructions of his Minister, he virtually read the Riot Act. He said to the Durban Co-operation: “My department will find the money and take care of the monetary side of the exercise. All I want from the Durban City Council is to pull out all stops and help me to expedite the construction of this market complex.”

Is that what Louis Fouché said?

That is at least one decent thing he did in his life! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, let me give the background and hon members can debate about it. It is nice to talk when one knows what one is talking about, so I am trying to give hon members some information which will assist them.

Mr Fouché took a very strong stand. On this occasion I must also compliment the former regional representative of the Department of Indian Affairs in Durban, Mr Van Eyssen, who, as chairman of the committee, certainly steered those meetings in such a way that he was able to elicit co-operation from many unwilling departmental heads of the Durban Corporation to make possible the election and occupation of that market centre. There had to be a process of give and take.

If all the municipal regulations were to be applied it would have been impossible to realise the goal of a speedy construction and occupation of the premises. The sad part of it is that subsequently the undertaking on the part of Mr Fouché which was given at a meeting of the Van Eyssen Committee came to nought. There has instead been ongoing negotiation and confrontation between the market stallholders and the Durban Corporation, resulting in the present situation.

I want to inform the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that only last Friday an advertisement appeared in The Natal Mercury in which a site on which the old-age home was constructed has been offered by public tender at a price of R2 million. If my memory serves me correctly, the site comprises just over 9 000 square metres. It must be remembered that there is still a member of the Indian community who occupies premises in the old market area, part of whose land was expropriated on the clear and definite understanding that it was required for the extension of the market. There is documentary evidence that the Durban Corporation had the intention many years ago to do something to improve the old building which was overcrowded and created other problems as well.

I believe some responsibility has to be assumed by the authorities to ensure that this building is completed. Fourteen years have gone by and many persons have gone out of business while others are merely eking out a living. The commitment made by the Van Eyssen Committee has not yet been fulfilled for the reasons put forward by several hon members in the course of the debate here.

I want to say to the hon the Minister that to talk in terms of any kind of a plan of a building would be an exercise in futility unless one has made a careful survey of all the people who have to be resettled. One has to ascertain what their financial capabilities are because it is no good to expect of a man who is selling vegetables on two tables— the hon member for Springfield referred to this kind of vendor—to pay R33 per square metre. The first task therefore that has to be completed is a survey to establish the nature of the accommodation required. There may be three categories of people for whom facilities must be made available. One can therefore not talk in terms of an Oriental Plaza or some expensive building if it would in fact result in the death knell for many people who still have hope that justice will be meted out to them.

I believe the Indian community in Durban has been given a raw deal insofar as this market is concerned. As was pointed out earlier, what is known as the White municipal market had trading premises that were built and let out by the Durban Corporation. Secondly, we have traders who will be displaced from a temporary building, namely the old Bult sales hall which is now required for Railway development purposes. One also has a sizeable number of persons eking out a living at the Westcliff shopping centre. I remember very clearly that there was political agitation when these people were moved out to Chatsworth but an assurance was given to them that when the new building was completed, they would be given the opportunity of occupying premises in the new building, and if they so desired they could also continue holding the premises available to them in Chatsworth.

I want to join other hon members of the House— I think that we are all united—in saying that we as representatives of the community cannot run away from this challenge which we are facing. However, it cannot be achieved or realised by any one group alone. I believe what we need is for the hon the Minister to use his good offices and to bring the Durban Municipality and all interested parties to the negotiation table with the view to finding a medium which will in fact be a joint effort which will finally satisfy all the people who are involved.

I want to place emphasis on the fact that any move to do any planning, without first taking into account the actual needs of the people who will have to be resettled and their ability financially to assume responsibilities, would be an exercise in futility. I know that there are a certain number of traders the nature of whose business may very well qualify them for this complex for which the developers have put up plans as has been publicised. These premises might be suitable for them, but the overwhelming majority of the people who occupy premises in that area fall into an entirely different category. They are just small business people and the nature of their trading itself is such that they merely eke out a living. Due consideration must be given to these matters.

I want to conclude by reminding the hon the Minister that there was a firm commitment on the part of the Government of that day to make it possible for a structure to be built to house these displaced traders and that the then Minister of Community Development and his departmental secretary in fact made that commitment. Mr Fouché himself took part in the discussions following that statement by the Minister by asking the Durban Corporation to offer him the maximum possible support so that this project could be realised with the least possible delay.

I believe that the House of Delegates can play a role in this matter and I want to support the amendment moved by my colleague the hon member for Stanger, because I believe that there is much merit and wisdom in his submission.

Mr Chairman, I want to place on record that it is the wish of everyone in this House and the wish of the stallholders as well as the wish, not only of the Indian community, but of the South African community that the municipality of Durban—which is the main city in the so-called last bastion of the British Empire where British justice should prevail—I know that in the Cape they regard us as a foreign country—should undertake the construction of this market.

Let us now learn from the lessons of Bloemfontein. I had occasion to visit Bloemfontein recently to identify land for Indian housing and I was amazed that Bloemfontein had a situation that was similar to Durban. They had an old National Fresh Produce Market just like Durban where the stallholders are being housed on a temporary basis. They did not demolish that old National Fresh Produce Market building but converted it into a plaza. What did they do after that? They extended an invitation to members of the Indian community to come and trade in this plaza. Now if Durban had followed their example and set the lead they would have been true to the dictum that they are controlling a liberal city.

I want to place certain things on record. One is that it is not the intention of the House of Delegates to wield the big stick, contrary to what has been stated in the media. Secondly, it is not the intention of the House of Delegates to undertake the construction of the plaza itself.

We would welcome private initiatives, provided there are certain permanent safeguards for the stallholders. However, the stallholders and the community say that it is historically their site. As the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated this afternoon, two sites on which traders are still continuing with their business were expropriated approximately 30 years ago for the sole purpose of extending the old Indian market.

The attitude of the Durban Municipality towards the Indian stallholders is well-known for the past 35 years. Even though the fire did not destroy the market, it was their intention to ensure that that market be destroyed through a process of slow torture.

In terms of the succession of tenancy clause, in the event of the death of a tenant, neither his children nor his spouse were allowed to succeed in tenancy. I know of a case where family members did everything to keep their father alive with all the medical assistance at their disposal, knowing that upon the death of the father, that shop will have to close down.

These were the measures that were used before the fire destroyed the market. However, what happened when the fire destroyed the market? Was there any sympathy from the Durban Municipality? There was a world-famous evangelist visiting Durban at the time. He came to the site of the market and prayed that the municipality do something to rebuild the market.

I want to place on record the tremendous role played by the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the SAIC at the time, the late Mr A M Rajab. Despite severe illness he played an excellent role. I want to pay tribute to the Minister of Indian Affairs at the time, Senator Owen Horwood. I remember reading the Natal Mercury one Saturday morning, when he lashed at the Durban Municipality. He attacked the mayor of Durban in Parliament. His actual words were: “By hook or by crook, we will rebuild that market.”

I want to say that that market was built on a temporary basis on the old site, not as a result of the initiative or the generosity of the Durban Municipality, but because the State made a financial contribution. The State made it possible for these people to get their stalls back.

My colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget gave the history of the Van Eyssen Committee and I want to place on record that the work of the Van Eyssen Committee is not yet over. The Durban City Council, the former SAIC, the former Department of Community Development and the former Department of Indian Affairs were all represented on the Van Eyssen Committee. They decided to resettle the stallholders on a temporary basis in the old National Fresh Produce Market Hall, pending finding these people a permanent place. A permanent place was identified in Ordinance Road but in 1983, we do not know why, the former Department of Community Development decided to close the chapter and hand over to the Durban Municipality the site on which the Plaza was supposed to be constructed.

Let us look at the manner in which the Durban City Council dealt with this matter. The stallholders submitted an offer for R2,5 million. G H Isaac-Gishen’s offer was R1,1 million. They say that they are not legally responsible for resettling the stallholders; it is the responsibility of the Department of Community Development, and this Administration has taken over the responsibility of the two former departments of Indian Affairs and of Community Development. The Department of Community Development accepted the responsibility that to a large extent many of these stallholders are victims of the Group Areas Act.

The reason why we did not support the proposals of G H Isaac-Gishen, in spite of the fact that they tendered R1,1 million as opposed to the stallholders who offered to acquire the site for R2,5 million, was that this particular group was not prepared to consider a type of construction where ultimately ownership will be passed onto the individual traders.

That we had to project. We wanted to ensure that the construction would be of such a kind that the stallholders would ultimately be the owners of that particular property. That was not to be. We had discussions with the representatives but we did not succeed. We even arranged that the successful tenderers at the time hold a discussion with the stallholders’ association, but they were not prepared to accommodate the wishes of the stallholders’ association.

In a act of desperation we made an offer to the Durban Municipality to acquire the site for R2,1 million. Either we would construct it ourselves and our financial involvement would be of a temporary nature, or alternatively we had private enterprise that was prepared to construct a market to ensure that the wishes of the stallholders would be realised. I want to say that when the House of Delegates made this offer, we did so realising that the cause of the stallholders was being lost. I want to place on record today that we did not utter any irresponsible statements. We did not react to any statements made by any city councillor when this matter was being debated in the Council Chamber. I refer to statements made against the Administration of the House of Delegates. Even today I do not wish to react to that. I believe that we must negotiate. I believe we must keep all options open. However, from the time that the fire destroyed the market, the Durban City Council has stubbornly adopted the attitude that they are not responsible and that they will not construct the plaza.

If the Durban City Council decides to undertake the construction of the plaza itself, or to make use of private enterprise in such a manner that the wishes of the stallholders are respected, nobody will be more pleased than the Administration of the House of Delegates.

As a last resort we want to come in and undertake the responsibility for ourselves, because when we were not in the House of Delegates; when we were not members of Parliament ; when we were not Ministers, we as members of the South African Indian Council, championed the cause of these stallholders. If we championed the cause of these stallholders when we were not in Parliament or in the SAIC, then we cannot abrogate our responsibility when we are holding ministerial positions.

I want to say that the credibility of the House of Delegates will be very seriously affected if we do not come to the assistance of these people in their time of need. This is their time of need, and this is the time when they want us most.

If it was the intention of the Durban City Council to provide a building for Durban of which it could be proud, then they should not be fussy as to who is offering to provide that building. This is not an ordinary site. Part of the land that was acquired, was expropriated for the purposes of extending the market. The whole history of this site is completely different. I agree with the standpoint of the municipality as regards private enterprise; I think we can make use of private enterprise in such a manner that the whole sad chapter can be ended.

When this matter was debated in the Chamber of the Durban City Council, it was stated that the House of Delegates had been offered this site two years previously, and that because we did not take this offer, the Durban City Council decide to advertise this. I want to place officially on record this afternoon that neither I nor the members of the Ministers’ Council nor our Administration have any record of such offer. This was stated very clearly and publicly. It was stated clearly on Monday, when the Director-General of our Administration and the Chief Director of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, met the town clerk to discuss, among other things, the question of the Indian market.

I want to place on record here that in 1985, when we had discussions in Cape Town with the mayor of Durban and the chairman of the management committee regarding various issues including the plaza, we suggested the formation of a joint committee to discuss the future of the stallholders. Early this morning the office of the town clerk of Durban was contacted and we asked them for a copy of this letter. They referred us to a letter sent to our Administration on 24 January 1985. According to them this was the offer made to the House of Delegates. Now this is the main argument that the Durban City Council is advancing in respect of not dealing with the House of Delegates, because apparently we did not react to this “offer”. We supposedly did not respond to them and therefore they advertised it and thereafter it was too late for us to negotiate with them. I personally think it is incorrect for any municipality to suggest to a State department that it should tender along with others on an open market. We deal with many municipalities throughout this country and with the exception of Durban, we enjoy very good response. Whatever party those municipalities may support—it may even be rightwing—on matters of this kind they are sympathetic and we are getting their cooperation.

Our Administration received this letter from the town clerk on 24 January 1985 and I quote:

This is the letter that we received and such is the “offer” which they refer to. We have no other offer on file. We have no knowledge of any other offer made to us concerning the Durban City Council’s willingness to sell this site to the House of Delegates for the purpose of resettling the stallholders.

Last year we had a notice of motion on this particular issue from the hon member for Stanger. I am glad that the hon member for Isipingo thought of introducing this motion. He had thought that this would be a big issue in our no-confidence debate in the Ministers’ Council. For the standpoint we have taken we should have had a motion of confidence in the Ministers’ Council, because from certain quarters we have received negative publicity. In a crisis like this one should not move a notice of motion and then send this notice of motion to the Press in Durban. I would have expected from every party in this House to take a stand when the Durban City Council took a decision to alienate the site to J H Isaacs, Gershwin & Company. The Ministers’ Council stood alone. It is unfortunate that we were not together on this, in spite of the fact that we may have differed on the matter. That is why we must show complete unity in this. If the Durban City Council decides to help the storeholders, the House of Delegates will not step in, except where we may safeguard the interests of the storeholders. We would ultimately like to ensure that the ownership of those shops passes into their hands.

Furthermore, we are morally obliged to assist these people because of the promises made by the former Minister of Community Development and the former Secretary for Community Development. Someone in the Government—and I think the right person for this is my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—must ensure that the workings of a State committee are finalised. The workings of the Van Eyssen Committee have not yet been finalised, because one of the tasks was to ensure that these people were permanently resettled.

Finally, I want to ask the hon member for Stanger what he meant by the expression “big stick”? I want to say that expropriation is the last thing I would ever resort to because I do not think any Minister would like to use the big stick. However, I want to make an appeal to the Durban City Council. I do not think they could ever accuse us of acting irresponsibly or of making irresponsible statements. We could have reacted to the type of statement which the Chairman of the Management Committee of Durban has made, namely: “I will not sell this site to the House of Delegates”. What amazes me, however, is that the Provincial Executive Council took a decision on Thursday afternoon and that although.it is a little early for them to officially convey that decision to the Durban City Council, someone in the Durban City Council decided on Friday morning to set up a committee to deal with tenders, and on Monday the Durban City Council decided at its plenary session to sell the site by public tender on the open market. This was very swift action on the part of the Durban City Council, action consistent with the attitude they adopted both before and after the market was destroyed by fire. They were consistent in that one respect, and they told us in very clear terms that they would not build the market. I do not think one should expect them to build the market.

Furthermore, they are not prepared to cooperate with the House of Delegates, stating that they offered the site to the House of Delegates two years ago. I have read out the letter we received from the Durban City Council in order to place it on record.

I want to say that it was our intention to identify another site for the purposes of constructing a plaza near this particular site in the Warwick Avenue Triangle, knowing that the Durban City Council would not use that particular site for the purpose of constructing a plaza.

I want to appeal to the higher motives of the Durban City Council. They owe it to the community of Durban and to the stallholders. We must dedicate ourselves with unity to this cause this afternoon. I want to repeat the words of Senator Owen Horwood. Someone told us during the past few days: “If you want it, expropriate it”. If we want to expropriate it, it will cost R6 million. Let us be very clear on this. The expropriation rules stipulate market value plus 10%. Let us be very, very clear on that. However, I want to appeal to them that they owe it to Durban and to South Africa, and at this stage we shall exploit all the channels of negotiation at our disposal.

The first avenue we must exploit, is to leave it in the hands of the Ministry and the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. I think the hon the Minister has accomplished many great achievements in this country, and this is a small task we are entrusting to him. We are actually an adjunct to his department because there is actually only one minister of local government in this country. Our difficulty is that we have no local governmental power. One has to talk to a local government agency. Therefore, there is only one minister of local government in this country, and that is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He is the right Minister for us to employ in the first stage of the gentle art of negotiation politics.

I want to say that we should not talk of using the big stick. I think if one wants to use the big stick, one should first talk and then use only use it. At the same time, if we finally decide that we have tried negotiation and that it has failed, we shall have consultation with the leaders of the parties before we decide that we now want to use anything at our disposal to be of assistance. However, before we do that, we will have a discussion so that we will realise the full implications of our decisions.

Mr Chairman, let me start by saying that it is always a pleasure to come to this House. It is so this afternoon as well. I have a vested interest in this House, which is not a pecuniary one. It is something different. I therefore think, Mr Chairman, that you will bear with me if I just deviate from the rules for one moment and come back to the topic later.

This is an institution of democracy. Many people, when they talk about democracy, only see the institution and the Constitution which establishes such a democracy. However, it is something more. It is also a set pattern of behaviour. It lends itself to differences. It also lends itself to solutions. I want to appeal that hon members of this House, as hon members of other Houses of Parliament, should understand that we enhance the values and the image of these institutions by our own behaviour, also our behaviour towards each other. Only great men can differ quietly and sensibly.

Having said this, I want to apply it to the debate this afternoon. I want to follow on what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said. When one seeks solutions in areas of conflict of interest, where people have different perspectives on issues involved, it is always good and usually successful to deal with it with all the sensitivity it requires. I believe that in discussing the issue before us, there are certain perspectives that we should in fact bear in mind.

If we are to deal with this—and I suggest we do— there are legal implications. Although we may agree that one should not approach this in a legalistic manner, it does not detract from what the legal implications are. Let us take both the motion and the proposed amendment in this regard. Hon members will understand when I say that I believe there is a wrong perspective inside, and sometimes outside, this House of the authority I hold. Let me explain my position in this regard. My Ministry often becomes the place where all unsolved problems land. However, I do not have the authority that the hon members for Isipingo and Stanger imply in their motion and amendment respectively.

Firstly, I have no powers to instruct the Durban City Council, neither have I any powers to direct that council.

But you are the boss!

No, I am not the boss. My boss is at home. [Interjections.]

What I have is, at best, the power of persuasion. That is the best I have.

I want to go further and say that I have in fact experienced that one can go a long way with the process of persuasion. I have often said and I want to repeat that many people feel aggrieved about many things—some with justification and others without. However, I have learned one thing in life and that is that the truth does not become more true when it is put harshly. The truth does not need that. I believe that is how we should approach this particular issue.

I want to tell the hon member for Isipingo that the Government is not in collaboration with any local government, nor with the Durban City Council. Hon members have referred to the fact that when the market had burnt down at the time it was the Government of the day that intervened and provided temporary accommodation for the stall owners. I think the hon member will understand the spirit in which I react.

The property involved is the property of the Durban City Council. Do we agree on that?

It belongs to the people of Durban—they pay the rates.

Yes, I am coming to that. However, we must be very careful with the implications of such an interjection. As I said, the property belongs to the City Council of Durban.

The all-White City Council!

In terms of the philosophy that applies here the property is in trust for all the people of the city of Durban. The Indian people represent a major and very important part of the people that live within the jurisdiction area of the City Council.

They built up Durban!

No, with due respect, they did not build up Durban on their own. All the people helped to build up Durban.

But they had a major role in building it up.

I am not trying to have a private discussion with the hon member Mr S Abram. I am only trying to explain what the legal and factual situation is.

Because it is trust property, certain laws apply. I am now not only talking about Durban but about all the city councils in the country. There are certain laws that specify how city councils should deal with property that they hold in trust.

What is the position with regard to this particular case? If the Durban City Council wishes to dispose of any property by private treaty they need—just as any other local authority in Natal— the approval of the Administrator and the executive. The Administrator alone is not enough.

The full executive?

Yes, the full executive.

If they sell property by public tender and there are objections to the sale to a specific tenderer the arbitrator in such a case is again the Administrator. If they want to sell a property by public tender they do not have to get the approval of any other authority.

The legal position is therefore that should the Durban City Council wish to sell that property without consulting anybody, all they have to do is to sell by public auction. So far they have not preferred to do that and therefore there has been a remedy for the Indian community as hon members have already mentioned. I understand that the Durban City Council has advertised the sale of that property by tender again. The advertisement appeared on 12 February.

If we are in agreement on this, and I understand that we are, one must intervene by objecting to the sale by tender. Then again the cultural aspect is the functional one in that particular regard.

I want to explain this because it is a perspective which we have to bear in mind. However, there is another perspective that I believe should also be borne in mind. I believe the historical perspective should be borne in mind. Now what is that historical perspective? As I understand it, that market has been in existence for 80 years and it was a market for Indian traders. This is a fact that must be acknowledged when one is dealing with that problem. I do not believe that when one deals with a problem that one should have a purely legalistic approach and say, “I have this right and I intend to exercise it”. [Interjections.] Because Government is for the good of all the people and not only some of the people.

I believe that that historical facet must be acknowledged. I believe that, in all fairness to the City Council, they have tried to do that by calling for a brief or a tender. We may not agree with the way in which they have done it, but they have also tried to make provision for traders. I am not judging whether that was right or wrong, all I am trying to say is this: They have tried to do it.

I am going to put the other perspective. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and other hon members have referred to it. That is, I do not believe that public bodies must of necessity and in all cases be the developers of property. I do not believe it is correct. That is another perspective. I believe that local governments should provide services and goods that can normally not be supplied effectively and at an economic price by the private sector. I think hon members will agree with me. Therefore I find nothing wrong in the concept that in this particular case there could be development which involves the private sector as well. I say this always with the reservation that in the process of doing it that way, due regard should be given to the other aspect to which I have referred, and that is that there is an historical background. One should look into that background as well. I think hon members will again agree with me that one should try to do it in this particular way.

In so far as it was possible for me I tried to establish what the facts were. The market burnt down and the van Eyssen Committee was appointed to resettle the Indian traders. I think the hon members will agree with me on that. They took certain resolutions and I am just going to refer to three of them. Having resolved the issue of temporary accommodation, they adopted the following resolutions in connection with permanent facilities. I am not suggesting that we must stand by this, I am just trying to get the facts on record. I quote:

1. (i) That the Durban City Council in collaboration with the Department of Community Development be requested to establish trading facilities in Chatsworth.

That is what they decided at the time. I quote further:

1. (ii) That the Durban City Council be requested to defer the determination of the tenancies of the Victoria Street Market (restored portion) for a period while steps are being taken to provide the facilities.

There are many others and I now come to another one:

1. (h) On 14 February 1975 the Commission recorded that it was not its function to undertake or ensure the erection of a market complex in the Grey Street area.

That is the information I have. However, this does not help me very much because it does not solve the problem of the traders. What makes a difference now, is that there is a process of disposing of the site on which the market had existed on a temporary basis since 1974.

Mr Chairman, it is important to place on record that the late Dr Moolla, who was also in the Indian Council at the time, did not report those things to us …

Order! The hon member is not raising a question. The hon the Minister may continue. [Interjections.]

No, please. I do not believe that anybody should be blamed for anything. [Interjections.]

I do not want the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council or any of his colleagues to try and put the blame on people. I gave a review of what had happened and of the decision that was taken. These people were settled at Chatsworth and it was a temporary measure. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

Let us not argue about past history. The fact is that we are dealing with an issue of the present.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would agree that that committee was informed that the then Department of Community Development would not be committed to the development of the market. It was not the Van Eyssen Committee’s decision, it was a decision of the department at the time. In any event, the Van Eyssen Committee did not have much of an option. [Interjections.] The City Council advertised the site for sale.

Produce the records.

Order! The hon the Minister must be allowed to continue with his speech.

Mr Chairman, it seems to me that I will have to withdraw the compliments that I made at the beginning of my speech. [Interjections.]

The City Council advertised the site for sale. It is true that the stallholders submitted a tender. It is also true that a private firm, J H Isaacs and Grinaker, submitted a tender. Furthermore the City Council recommended to the Administrator that the tender of J H Isaacs and Grinaker be accepted. It is also a fact that the management committee for the Grey Street area recommended the acceptance of their tender.

They do not have the support of the people; they were nominated.

I accept that. I am not arguing a case for that. I am merely giving hon members the background.

It is also true that the executive refused to accept the recommendation.

They can do it again.

They can do it again. However, refusing it does not get us anywhere.

It does not solve the problem.

It does not solve the problem that way. I believe that we should try and solve the problem that we are dealing with.

Durban without a market for the Indian people would be the poorer for it. [Interjections.] South Africa would be the poorer for it, because it was a historical monument. Therefore it is not only the Indian community of Durban that has an interest in it. I believe that the province and the country have an interest in it.

How do we satisfy the different perspectives that we all agree on? I believe that we do agree on the retention of a market in Durban for the Indian community and, if other communities are also interested, that we should include them as well. I think that is fair.

Secondly, if it is the stated policy of Government to propagate the small businessman, and if the Government establishes corporations such as the Small Business Development Corporation, then quite obviously, a market would be in line with such a philosophy. Thus there are very cogent reasons that we could put forward in favour of the retention or rebuilding of a market. Let us, then, just consider for a moment the site of a market. I believe that all these agencies should be involved in taking decisions in this particular regard. We must be very careful in this regard. My information is that approximately 50% of the stallholders are in fact renting from somebody else who is not the city council. There are other parties that rent and then relet to the stallholders.

Yes, they speculate.

Who is the cause of that?

I am not discussing cause and effect; I am discussing the facts of the situation.

It is true that to some extent the small trader is also being exploited by certain people; that is the information I have. Maybe it is wrong, but we should look into that as well.

Therefore, what I am trying to suggest is that if we succeed in retaining the market there, one should also ensure that the small man gets a fair share of that. [Interjections.]

Yes, that is the point I made.

Therefore it seems to me that when we discuss this matter there are so many factors that both sides of this House have in common …

A market.

Yes, a market, if possible with some sort of protection built in for stallholders in the sense that they must get some kind of right: not necessarily a preference, but a right also to be there. We can work out the details. However, we are agreed on that.

I say that if we are agreed on it, then it need not be necessary for this House to take a vote on the motion. I do not believe that you should take a vote on it, and I am voicing my own opinion in the matter. I say this because the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House are the same in these instances. Why, then, make it a matter of dispute because of the wording of a motion?

I shall give an undertaking to this hon House this afternoon. I have absolutely no legal authority in this regard, but I am prepared to play the role of an honest broker in the sense that I am prepared to establish whether it might be possible for me to meet with the executive, the city council and my colleagues of the Ministers’ Council. We could sit around a table and address the issues fairly and thoroughly so that we can achieve the greatest measure of justice, based not only on a legal approach but also on the historical background, the moral issues involved as well as all the other issues involved. In that way I believe that we shall be performing a service to the Indian community as well as all the other communities in Durban.

If we can succeed, then we shall prove something else, and that is that negotiations can work. I believe that fair-minded people, bearing in mind everything I have said, could truly come to a conclusion which would be fair to all concerned.

I hope that the hon members of this House will accept my bona fides in this particular regard. Therefore I feel that the occasion requires for the hon member for Isipingo and the hon member for Stanger both to stand up and to withdraw the motion and the amendment thereto. We should let this discussion suffice. If we are not successful there will be another opportunity to discuss it. However, further discussion this afternoon on this issue can only impede or limit attempts that we might start to resolve this issue.

Mr Chairman, I have full confidence in the hon the Minister and I withdraw my motion.

Mr Chairman, in the light of the spirit that prevails on this particular issue and which is very much in keeping with my amendment, I withdraw the amendment because it is axiomatic.

Motion and amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, in this regard I must address the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The Van Eyssen Commission received all kinds of representations and there were many objections. Mr Van Eyssen, however, was able to persuade all these members that the commission should discharge this responsibility in a manner which will satisfy the Indian community. These meetings took place over a long period of time, but I can assure this House that at no stage did any representative of the Indian market stallholders ever agree to the Indian community being permanently settled in Chatsworth. The idea was mooted, but it was not agreed to. I am surprised that these minutes, which are there …

Order! Both the motion and the amendment have now been withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I would just like to place on record that a person’s name was mentioned here and I …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: As I understand …

Order! What is the hon member’s point of order?

My point of order simply is that as I understood the hon the Leader of the House, he moved for the adjournment of this House.

Order! Notwithstanding that the hon the Leader of the House has moved for the adjournment, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sought to address the Chair. He was given the necessary permission to do so. Thereafter the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council came in to reply. Therefore the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had an opportunity. I shall now give the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council his opportunity to reply.

Mr Chairman, might I crave your indulgence?

Order! Is that a point of order?

Mr Chairman, would you allow me to address a few words to the Chair?

Order! I am now giving the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council an opportunity to address the Chair.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! Will the hon member please resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, in the light of the fact that a name was mentioned by the hon member for Red Hill, I think it is only appropriate that at a later date we get the minutes of the meetings of the Van Eyssen Committee and place the record in the proper perspective.

Mr Chairman, in the light of the comments just made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I would like to reserve the comments that I would have made, had those comments not been made.

Question agreed to.