Order! I have to announce that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Assembly in the seat of a member elected in terms of section 41 (1) (c) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act—Act 110 of 1983—owing to the resignation of Dr B L Geldenhuys with effect from 22 February 1988.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, at the request of the hon the State President I wish to read the following statement to the House on his behalf:

It was with deep regret that I learnt of the loss of life, damage and disruption which followed the widespread heavy rain and floods in the Free State, large parts of the Cape Province, the Western Transvaal and Northern Natal.

On behalf of the Government and people of South Africa I wish to express our sincere sympathy to those affected in some way or other by the loss of life and damage caused by the flood. At the same time we cannot neglect to express our humble thanks to Almighty God that the many years of drought over large part of the country have been broken.

As on similar occasions in the past the Government will do everything in its power to assist the victims of the flood. The relevant Ministers, State Departments and other authorities are already taking action in this regard. I wish to express the sincere thanks of the Government to everyone who has already assisted the victims of the flood and heavy rains in their hour of need.

As in the case of Natal, where a Cabinet committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, Dr W A Van Niekerk, a committee which is still responsible for dealing with the flood and its consequences in Natal, a special Cabinet committee has again been appointed under the chairmanship of Dr Van Niekerk to determine the extent of the latest flood damage and to make recommendations to the Government on how to deal with the consequences of the floods.

The members of the committee are Dr W A Van Niekerk, Minister of National Health and Population Development (Chairman); Dr D J De Villiers, Minister of the Budget and Welfare in the House of Assembly; Mr A A Venter, Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the House of Assembly; Mr D M G Curry, Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives; Mr P J Badenhorst, Deputy Minister of Development and Planning; Mr S J De Beer, Deputy Minister of Education; Mr D M Streicher, Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs; Mr G S Bartlett, Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology; Mr J A Van Wyk, Deputy Minister of Water Affairs and of Land Affairs; Mr R P Meyer, Deputy Minister of Law and Order; Mr W N Breytenbach, Deputy Minister of Defence; Dr A I Van Niekerk, Deputy Minister of Agriculture; Mr W A Cruywagen, Administrator of the Transvaal, assisted by members of the Executive Committee; Mr L Botha, Administrator of the Orange Free State, assisted by members of the Executive Committee; Mr E Louw, Administrator of the Cape, assisted by members of the Executive Committee. This committee is authorised to co-opt other persons where necessary.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has asked me for an opportunity to make a statement. I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to make a statement; I should merely like to associate myself, on behalf of this side of the House, with the regret expressed regarding the loss of life and damage caused, and at the same time express our gratitude that the drought has been broken in very large areas of our country.

I also want to pledge the support of this side of the House to the committee which must act in the interest of giving assistance to the people in the flood-ravaged areas.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, after hearing your announcement this afternoon about a vacancy in the House, I am really very tempted to refer to the imminent by-elections, but I shall restrain myself. Nevertheless, I want to advise the Government not to be too hasty in filling the vacancy that has arisen as a result of the resignation of the hon member Dr Geldenhuys before 29 March, because they may need that vacancy again. [Interjections.]

If I may return to the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill and the hon the Minister’s reply, I want to refer briefly to his reaction to my speech. In my speech I referred to the percentage of the country’s savings which had been absorbed by the Government. I had a look at my Hansard, and it is quite possible that I made a slip of the tongue as far as the years 1985 and 1986 are concerned.

I find it strange, however, that when I was referring to 1987, I was not talking about gross savings, but about net savings. Despite that the hon the Minister said the following:

If I did make a slip of the tongue, it is strange that the hon the Minister did not realise that when I was talking about 1987, I was referring to the net savings.

We must discuss that again.

I think we shall leave it at that.

I was interested in the question, put to the hon the Minister by the PFP’s chief spokesman on finance, about the statement made by the Director-General, Dr Stals. He asked whether salary increases for public servants were being restricted primarily with a view to combating inflation or mainly as a result of fiscal necessity, the simple reason being that the money was not available and that if salary increases were granted, this would of necessity lead to increases in taxation as well. I found the hon the Minister’s answer interesting:

And then, right at the end of his reply:

I think I am being fair to the hon the Minister in saying that he was telling us that the real reason for introducing restrictions on salary increases now was that the hon the Minister had fiscal problems and that this would lead to increases in taxation.

In Saturday’s edition of Die Burger I read that Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi had announced with gratitude that he had received sufficient funds to increase the salaries of public servants in KwaZulu as from 1 March to a level equal to that of the Whites. In other words, in a year in which our public servants are expected to tighten their belts, the Chief Minister of KwaZulu announced that this was not required of his government, and that funds were being made available to him for salary increases.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister, if this is true in respect of KwaZulu—I do not know whether it is or not; this was what I read in Die Burger—whether this applies to the other homelands as well. Does it also apply to Lebowa, Qwaqwa and all the other states which are not yet independent? If it applies to them, does it also apply to our own Public Service in the rest of South Africa? I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would reply to this.

Is it true that although our public servants are being asked to tighten their belts, the so-called elimination of the wage gap is being pursued in the same year? We want to know whether or not the other population groups in the Public Service are, in reality, going to get an increase this year, particularly because the hon the Minister rightly pointed out that the majority of the public servants in South Africa are people of colour. We are looking forward to the hon the Minister’s reply, because it is of great importance to us.

Once we have reached the stage of absolute parity in salaries, we should like to debate parity among the respective population groups in respect of social spending which makes up part of the Government’s expenditure as well. That is all I want to say about the debate that has taken place.

There is one thing that worries me, and I think the time has come for us to be frank with one another in talking about it in this House: Recently we have read reports in the newspapers concerning alleged corruption and alleged irregularities, not only in South Africa, but also in the independent states such as Transkei, for example. These are states whose economies depend upon the South African taxpayers to a great extent.

Perhaps there is not much the South African Government can do to monitor the matter properly in the states which have already achieved independence, such as Transkei. It is more than time, however, for us to tell the leaders and governments of those countries that the South African taxpayers are not content with the fact that money, a large part of which is supplied to those countries by the South African taxpayers, is being wasted in an alarming way.

This also applies to the homelands which are not yet independent. Proper auditing of the homeland governments’ books is done, but the report of the Auditor-General does not come to this Parliament; it goes to the homelands’ governments. There is no way, at present, for the select committee of this Parliament to monitor whether or not the expenditure in the homelands which have not yet reached independence, is as it should be.

We shall have peace of mind regarding this matter only if our Auditor-General’s audit reports about the homeland governments’ books are submitted to this Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

One thing that we in South Africa cannot afford to have, and dare not permit, is corruption thriving in all spheres of life in South Africa, not only in the public sector, but also in the private sector. We would be doing our country a favour if all of us—no matter which party we belong to—eradicated corruption in our fatherland.

Things have really reached a pretty pass when one reads reports indicating that we are providing a refuge for Mafia-type characters from abroad. We find it strange that such characters should be permitted to enter South Africa. I am not going to refer to specific cases; hon members all know what I am talking about.

This is not the task of the hon the Minister of Finance, but the hon the Minister of Home Affairs owes this House a reply. How is it possible for those people, with their past, to succeed in covering their tracks and then to find a home here in South Africa quite easily? The CP wants to lodge an objection. We say that it is long since time for us to eradicate corruption in our father-land in all spheres of life.

Order! Just before I call upon the hon the Deputy Minister to speak, and if I may have the attention of the hon the Leader of the House, I want to point out to hon members that I understand a technical mistake has crept in and that the Wednesday night sittings were wrongly indicated as commencing this Wednesday night, whereas they only begin on 2 March. I understand this is a technical error that crept in. The fact of the matter is, however, that this was agreed to by the House of Assembly. We shall have to attend to this matter, and make a formal rectification. At this stage I can merely inform hon members, for the sake of their peace of mind, that I am aware of this information.

Mr Chairman, I think I am speaking on behalf of the hon members on this side of the House in saying we agree with the hon member for Barberton that corruption must be eradicated. None of us wants to promote or permit corruption.

I should like to associate myself with the hon the State President’s opening address and point out that the Government of South Africa is developing a new approach to Government spending. Just like any other Western country, we are concerned about the increase in Government expenditure as a percentage of our gross domestic product. Even Mrs Thatcher has problems. In the seven or eight years in which she has governed, she has succeeded, merely by the freezing of wages and salaries, in reducing her government expenditure from 43% to 42%. I must say she has succeeded in bringing inflation under control.

Recently there has been sharp criticism of the Government in respect of Government expenditure, as well as the effect that increasing Government expenditure is having on inflation, as is the case in most Western countries. This aspect also has political implications, because the restriction of Government expenditure influences the furnishing of important services such as social services, education and health services. On the one hand people say we should restrict Government spending, but on the other that the expenditure on certain social services is too restricted.

I find it interesting that “Government expenditure” has hardly ever been clearly defined in the debates that have taken place in this House. Government expenditure can be planned or unplanned. Examples of unplanned expenditure are drought aid to farmers and expenditure after the floods in Natal—matters which no Government could have planned for in advance.

It is also very difficult to plan ahead for expenses such as public debt and the increase in interest rates.

One can control some expenditure, however, such as the expenditure on social services. One rarely sees Government expenditure, because people talk about Government expenditure in general, but we have current expenditure, transfer payments and capital expenditure. Certain expenses are statutory, and we have no control over them; they simply have to be met.

In most Western countries, as in South Africa, there has been a drop in capital expenditure as a percentage of the gross domestic product. We have, therefore, begun to experience an enormous increase in transfer payments, which in turn include social services.

It is difficult to control Government expenditure. Why is it so difficult that even Mrs Thatcher could not succeed in doing so? There is immense pressure on us in this connection. The answer to this can be found firstly in the fact that in most Western countries, the cost of social services such as health services, education and housing, has increased more quickly than the inflation rate. Secondly we have a serious problem in this country in that we have high population growth among our Blacks, and we are experiencing a more rapid aging process among the Whites. This also makes specific demands on Government expenditure.

In the third place we have to contend with westernization, urbanization and industrialization which definitely exert immense pressure on Government expenditure. I can give one example. The Public Service has to make use of computer scientists to a great extent today. This exerts pressure on the quality of the public servants, and it costs more money to appoint those people. Let us be honest; the public is constantly requesting more services and better quality services at, unfortunately, subsidized prices. The above-mentioned factors exert an impossible amount of pressure on State expenditure and, of course, State revenue.

The political question is to what extent the Government can continue to provide these services which lead to increasing tax rates. What Governments strive for is a constantly diminishing Public Service which is more effective and pays more competitive salaries.

The Government’s strategy was spelt out in the hon the State President’s speech, and the various Budgets and the White Paper on the Margo Report will follow shortly. The business world wanted to know why the Margo Commission had not given attention to Government expenditure as well. It cannot be emphasised enough, however, that the Government is involved in important programmes which are going to effect structural changes to Government expenditure and are going to change the control process.

The hon the State President mentioned that Government expenditure as a whole is controlled by the State President’s Committee on National Priorities, whereas new capital projects are going to be evaluated by the Capital Priorities Committee. This means that total expenditure is considered first, followed by new capital expenditure.

I am going to mention briefly the programmes that are being undertaken at present in order to obtain better control over Government expenditure. I want to begin with the Commission for Administration’s function of clearing investigations. They are giving attention to increased productivity, which is very important. I shall deal with this in more detail later. Then there is the Treasury Committee for building norms and cost restrictions; the development of the financial management system; supply administration improvements; the Persal system for staff and salary administration; improved acquisition administration; better credit control; privatisation of Public Service functions; the institution of self-compensatory tariffs; and the Director-General’s performance audit. These combined programmes—I want to repeat that—these combined programmes will provide the long-term solution for more effective control of Government expenditure.

At the end of last year President Reagan announced his “Reform 1988” programme under the name “Quest for Excellence”. It is very interesting that this programme contains a plan for reducing expenditure over the next four or five years. In the first place there are savings achieved by means of privatisation, which will amount to $24,7 billion; secondly, self-remuneratory tariffs which will amount to $17,9 billion; thirdly, interest savings amounting to $7,7 billion; and fourthly, credit control which will save $7 billion. The improvement in the management of the Defence Force and other smaller savings amount to $74,5 billion. This almost eliminates President Reagan’s deficit on his budget.

Between 1983 and 1986 they implemented a new comprehensive cash management system which has already saved them $2,3 billion. They started cutting out unnecessary publications—I think we could consider that as well—and in one year they saved $50 million.

The president’s “quest for excellence” is a total strategy which contains the following aspects: Credit, financial and purchase management, improvement in productivity and better utilization of technology. The British Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, implemented her “financial management initiative” in 1982 in order to institute better management by objectives and information about the expenses and performance in the various state departments.

Last week Mrs Thatcher announced a new system. She is going to place the executive tasks of the various departments under the management of independent agencies. She estimates a saving of approximately £630 million per annum.

The Commission for Administration’s total plan for increased productivity by means of the clearing investigation consists of two phases. The first interesting phase questions whether or not certain services should be suspended, privatised or deregulated, scaled down in intensity or made self-remuneratory; and whether it is possible to effect better procedural, methodological and organisational adjustments. The second phase is the implementation of certain measures and techniques to promote efficiency in the Public Service. This is already being investigated in certain departments, and I can tell hon members that the results have been encouraging.

It is interesting that productivity in the American government has increased by 1,5% per annum since 1967. In studies in Britain, it was found that the increase in productivity in certain activities in the public service was higher than in the private sector. The American president has set the goal—I shall come to this later—of an increase in productivity of 3% per annum in the American public service. This covers only that part of the public service in which measurable objectives can be set. More than 3 500 measurable objectives have been identified. Approximately $1 billion will be saved for every increase of 1% in productivity.

More than 1 800 measurable objectives have been identified in the United Kingdom. It is interesting that the British government estimates that if they can succeed in achieving a productivity increase of 1% per annum, they will be able to increase social services and public servants’ salaries to a more satisfactory level by 1992.

In the United States the implementation of these measurable objectives will go hand in hand with performance-orientated systems of payment which will replace scale increases. Measurable objectives, increased productivity and performance-orientated payment systems are included in the budgets of the departments or agencies beforehand. They do not wait until afterwards, but will be including this in the budgets every year from now on.

The South African Government is also extending its computerised financial management system. At present we are working only with expenditure on programmes and objectives, and the acceleration of payments to suppliers. The system is being revised by the implementation of fourth-generation language and data communication systems to give more information for financial and cashflow control more quickly, and the evaluation of objectives. It is very important in the second phase to determine whether a certain sum was spent correctly in order to achieve the objectives set.

A new system of supply administration is being introduced in the Public Service. Unfortunately this is all still done by hand, although the total supplies probably amount to more than R100 billion.

Only 120 000 officials are paid according to the present standard salary system. Work is being done on the so-called Perusal system which can deal with the salary and personnel information of 700 000 public servants. I hope we can reduce this figure to under 700 000.

Another interesting development is that of a debtors’ system which will be used for the National Housing Fund, the Community Development Fund and financial assistance to farmers. This will come into operation shortly. The centralized purchase policy is used by the State Tender Board in particular, and there are plans to use it to increase the efficiency of regional tender boards.

We cannot function in today’s modern society without the availability of better and faster information. The speed with which information is made available, and whether or not the correct information is made available in the correct place, is very important. It is necessary, therefore, to have a technological revolution in South Africa’s Public Service. The sooner, the better.

Expenditure on computers and computer systems in the USA increased from 1,2% of the total budget in 1982 to 1,6% in 1987, a total of $16 billion. South Africa will have to pay more attention to technological development in the Public Service.

Bonus systems are used in the private sector to reward productivity. Is there any reason why we cannot use a bonus system to award productivity in the Public Service?

In terms of the American system known as the “Shared Savings Plan”, 50% of their savings as a result of improved productivity is given back to the departments. Half of this is used for bonuses, and the other half for productivity improvement funds.

The Commission for Administration is investigating further privatisation, and we expect results shortly. Naturally the implementation of all these programmes cannot be successful without training and advising our departments. We must also make sure no unnecessary legislation is restricting productivity in our Public Service.

It is of the utmost importance that all these programmes be co-ordinated correctly and that there be regular reports on this. In terms of the new system in the USA, each department reports every three months on how it is succeeding in achieving their productivity objective.

In my opinion the Commission for Administration, the Treasury, the Auditor-General and the Crafford Task Group must strive for a “Margo” on our Government expenditure. Possibly regular reports on certain objectives can be made to the hon the State President’s Priorities Committee. Is there any reason why we cannot set ourselves the objective of a 2% improvement in productivity in the Public Service? Then we shall be able to give public servants the remuneration they deserve, and we shall be able to balance our Budget.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister made a very interesting speech, if I may use the term. It would have been even more interesting if he had been able, instead of making an appeal as he did actually to give us the figures applicable to South Africa such as he gave us about the United States and the United Kingdom.

There is something missing at the present moment and the hon the Minister of Finance knows that this will remain my perpetual question until he answers it. Where is the five-year plan? Why did the hon the Deputy Minister not tell us about that, instead of telling us about the United States? Where is the order of priorities? That is what we are supposed to be told. It is fascinating to know what America is supposed to be doing, but I want to tell hon members that most of it is being done with mirrors. A lot of those so-called cuts in expenditure are actually just imaginary in order to bluff the people and we shall see that as time goes on.

I do not want the hon the Minister of Finance to bluff us. I want him to tell us what the real situation is. He can do that by telling us about the five-year plan and by giving us the same sort of figures that the hon the Deputy Minister gave us a few minutes ago.

There are just two things that I want to add on the question of State expenditure. It is not only the extent of State expenditure which is an issue, but also the nature of that expenditure. We have debated that at length with the hon the Minister of Finance over many years.

One of the real dangers that we face, is that when one has competing economic ideologies and one suddenly decides to cut State expenditure in respect of matters which are of social and political consequence, and one is opposed by people who actually offer an economic system which gives one so-called attractive instant solutions—which is again done by mirrors and which are not real— one has to be very careful when one is in power not to cut State expenditure in the wrong categories. I do not think the matter is quite as easy as it is portrayed to be and we do need to know what the Government’s plans are in this regard.

I want just briefly to touch on the question of the floods and to associate this side of the House with the remarks of the hon the State President in regard to the hardship that has been caused. We feel for the people who are affected adversely. We recognise the value of rain, but this is a country of extremes. We do not seem to be able to anything in moderation in this country and unfortunately we suffer in this particular way.

Sir, please permit me for a moment to pay tribute to one group of people whom I would particularly like to select and who have been engaged in the process of saving lives. I am referring to the South African Air Force and its helicopter pilots who I think do an outstanding job whenever natural disasters occur. I believe that we should pay tribute to these young and sometimes not so young men who are actually doing an outstanding job. Many of them risk and even sacrifice their lives in these activities and these young men are serving all the people of South Africa, irrespective of race or colour or where they are. They serve only those who are in trouble and in need.

I would like to make a specific appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance regarding another matter. This is really the last opportunity before the main Budget is presented to do so. I want to appeal to him to effect a reduction in personal income tax in the Budget. To my mind that will not only have an important psychological effect on the whole country, the whole business climate and the confidence of our people in South Africa, but to some extent will also be an answer to the critics who are complaining and using the intended non-increase, if I may use the term, in Public Service salaries for ulterior motives in certain respects. If we bring down inflation and income tax, real disposable incomes will in fact benefit. If therefore we bring down income tax, we are to a large extent compensating people who are not getting increases, and if we combine that with the combating of price increases—with the example being set by the Government—then I believe we will have a package which not only can provide solutions, but also be an attractive package which can find favour not only with the public servants but also with the electorate as a whole. I therefore make the appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance to include a reduction in personal income tax right across the board in his Budget.

I want now to touch very briefly on one matter which I regard as something of a disappointment. It is not in the Finance portfolio but it has been debated during the Second Reading. I am referring to the issue of conditions at Baragwanath Hospital. I think the hon member for Parktown made a very important appeal in this House on behalf of doctors who had stood by their principles and drawn attention to what was a very real problem. The answer he received was that one should praise the doctors who are rendering a tremendous service. They should in fact be praised, but he did not get an answer regarding the threat to fire these men who are serving the people of South Africa and who had the courage to speak out on a matter on which they had to speak out. Somebody speaking in this debate should now tell us that those people are not going to be fired; that they are going to be kept in their jobs and be able to do their jobs.

Finally, Sir, I want to deal with one other matter which has suddenly become fashionable. I call this “VAT knocking”. What is happening now, ever since the announcement that we are going to have an invoice-based VAT system, is that everybody is now having a knock at it. One can hardly open a newspaper without reading about someone who in order to get some publicity for his or her firm has discovered some little hang-up about VAT.

Knock them, Harry!

There is now a whole game of wanting to knock VAT in South Africa. With great respect to all these knockers of VAT, perhaps they should also mention the advantages of VAT. Perhaps they should also mention what the benefits are going to be from having VAT instead of GST. When we look at the situation in regard to the disadvantages, I hope that the hon the Minister will look at the experience of other countries which did in fact experience problems to see whether these problems relate to the farmer or to any of the other interest groups that have suddenly come forward to come and start talking about their problems. They should look at the problems as they have existed in other countries and consult across the board in South Africa and endeavour to see that we do not have those problems.

No system of taxation is perfect. In fact, the best system of taxation is no taxation at all. We would all vote for that! If, however, we are going to have a system of taxation we must choose the best one there is. We must then seek to eliminate the problems which there are, and that we can only do by the experience we can gain from other countries in the world in which VAT has existed for many years. We should consult across the board and then produce a piece of legislation which will stand the test of time.

I must tell the House, however, that I am sick and tired of the VAT knocking that has become a new national sport in South Africa over the last few weeks. Let us rather look at VAT constructively. Let us see that it does indeed work, and let us see that it works equitably when it is applied.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville tried again, as in the past, to provoke the hon the Minister into revealing what his so-called five-year plan entailed. The fact is that the NP has been in power for the past 40 years, and is still governing. Indeed, I believe that the five-year plan for economic reform is, in the first place, surely the responsibility of this Government and naturally also of the hon the Minister of Finance, who has to determine whether these specific aims, as he enumerated them in his plan, can be achieved.

I can find no fault with the hon member for Yeoville’s idea about the lowering of personal income tax as indirect compensation for the individual. However, the question that we should answer in this regard is whether the Treasury can afford such a decrease. That, Mr Chairman, I believe will only become a reality that can be discussed when the hon the Minister has delivered his Budget Speech.

With regard to the recent debate on financial matters, one thing was as clear as daylight, namely the measures which were announced by the hon the State President. I also believe they will deserve the utmost degree of recognition from everyone in South Africa. They will require complete teamwork. They will require everyone to co-operate, even across political boundaries. In the past we often used the term “financial discipline”. If there was ever a time in which financial discipline was a reality and had to be applied, that time is now. Every politician, every political party, has a total responsibility to make every effort in the struggle to achieve these particular aims.

This brings me, in the limited time at my disposal, to one of the facets of the measures which were announced, namely the salaries of public servants. As a representative of a Pretoria constituency in which approximately 60% of the voters and their families are public servants, I have a definite responsibility towards these people. Under normal circumstances, therefore, I would have been one of the first to argue and fight for a decent and significant general salary increase, not just for the sake of an increase, but because these people need one, and because, so I believe, the public servants deserve one.

In the context of the total package, as it was formulated by the hon the State President in his opening address, the question that arose—a question which must be answered—was whether the demand for a general salary increase is in any way justifiable. I can state categorically today that there is a real understanding, on the part of public servants, of the need for the measures which were announced.

The public servants are prepared to waive an increase, but there is a definite and specific condition attached to that. If they do not accept an increase, they must have the assurance that their contribution to the fight against inflation will have the desired result, that is to curb inflation. If they can contribute towards achieving this aim, I believe that they are, with great responsibility, going to waive an increase. An increase would inevitably result—we have seen it happen so often in the past—in prices rising—that old story of an increase of 15% and a price increase of 15%. For this reason the public sector understands this drastic measure with regard to the increase of salaries, but with a logical and very definite reservation, as I have already said, that prices will have to be kept in check.

The private sector and all its subdivisions, such as the commercial, the industrial and the service sectors, will have to help curtail price increases. If that is possible, if all sectors fall in with these objectives, public servants will also contribute gladly towards realising them.

For this reason I find it a pity that some of the hon members of the CP, the Official Opposition, do not lend proper support to these measures. The hon member for Ventersdorp—I see he is unfortunately not here—spoke of tightening our belts. He even went so far as to speak of tightening our belts as far as they would go. The hon member for Delmas, in turn, demanded a summary increase of 17% for public servants.

That is untrue.

It is not untrue. I did not consult his Hansard, but he was reported as having demanded 17%. I listened to him from my bench, and he definitely spoke of an increase of 17%.

It was the hon member for Carletonville.

They accuse the Government of having let inflation get out of hand. They attack the Government about Government expenditure. That is an old story which has been doing the rounds for a long time. It is told purely for political gain. Surely, that is not being honest. Surely, that is purely opportunistic political chatter, because in the next debate measures that seek to curb expenditure are shot down. In that debate they ask for salary increases, purely for political gain.

Their little paper has much to say about the high Government expenditure that is ostensibly getting out of hand, and about high income tax. It is used everywhere in the debates and, from public platforms, is also blamed on the Government; but in the same debate they emphasize this one facet and say that notwithstanding all these problems, they demand a salary increase for public servants.

The CP must spell out its economic policy clearly. Is it going to help curb inflation or is it going to engage in papular politics by presenting the Government as a bogeyman that does not care two hoots for public servants?

We will show sufficient financial discipline to forego this short-term gain in favour of a longterm solution, whereby the cancer in our economic life, namely this frantic and mad increase in prices, can be removed. It is going to require an overall team effort on the part of industry, public servants and the private sector to succeed in realising these aims.

Therefore, I should like to refer the relevant letter from the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce back to them. In this letter they advocate a reconsideration of the so-called freezing of public servants’ salaries. In the first place I want to point out to them that it is not a total freezing of salaries. There will still be the normal incremental adjustments and the singling out of specific professional groups. Therefore, if 60% of the inhabitants of Pretoria are public servants, as they claim in their letter, then Pretoria will eventually benefit to that extent. I hope that the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce, and especially its chairman, will have another look at the contents of this letter.

Unfortunately my time has expired. Since I am from Pretoria and represent Pretoria here, I want to say that we on this side of the House have the interests of public servants at heart, but that we also appreciate the great understanding that they are showing of the measures that were announced.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Gezina. I whole-heartedly support his plea for a team effort. I also agree with his plea with regard to public servants, and in my contribution I shall presently refer to the aim of the Government.

If one had followed the Second Reading debate, one would have found the difference between the Opposition Parties and this side of the House interesting. It became very clear that there were two outstanding characteristics in the contribution from this side of the House. The first was the attitude to the factual situation. The manner in which we referred to economic reform was purposeful and systematic. It is not something, as one of the hon members of the Official Opposition pointed out, that suddenly blew over from America and that we on this side of the House are slavishly following. There are many examples of the way in which we on this side of the House are looking at economic reform purposefully and systematically.

I am referring, inter alia, to the expert investigation into the tax system, the well-known Margo Commission investigation, which has often been discussed in this House and is certainly going to be discussed again. That commission was appointed in 1984. If we look at what preceded the hon the State President’s speech, we find that various proposals were discussed at the Federal Congress of the NP in August 1986. With regard to economic and financial aspects, there are three aspects, which had already been discussed at that stage, which I want to emphasise.

One was the transfer of Government functions or the sale of Government institutions to private individuals and concerns, where possibly desirable and in the interest of the community. A second aspect was deregulation where regulations were handicapping economic development, and the third aspect that was discussed at that stage was the advancement of the informal sector and small business undertakings.

It did not stop at the discussion of these matters.

They were also contained, virtually verbatim, in the election manifesto of the NP last year. They were also given further attention in the opening address of the hon the State President in which detailed reference was made, inter alia, to privatization and the promotion of the informal sector and small business undertakings, as well as deregulation.

A further salient aspect of the actions on this side of the House was that they were at all times realistic. We did not make opportunistic onslaughts by using emotional claims to offer voters an easy way out. Instead we referred to the realistic path that we in South Africa must follow, realistic in the sense that it does not seek to bring about change simply for the sake of change, but to use change as a means to an end.

I want to join the hon member for Gezina in his appeal. The means to the end, or the change that the hon the State President had in mind with these newly announced initiatives, is aimed at eventually putting more money into the taxpayer’s pocket.

As in the private sector it is necessary, from time to time, to make managerial adjustments on a sound business basis, it is the aim and aspiration of those on this side of the House to do exactly that and to be at all times systematic, purposeful and realistic.

It is important to consider not only what the vision of the opposition parties is, but how the actions of the Government are interpreted by organised trade and industry.

Assocom’s business confidence index reached a peak of 98 in January as against the 97,35 at the close of last year—the average figure for the year being 95,5. According to Assocom, this increase in business confidence can be attributed to various factors such as the upward tendency of the real import rate, the increase in the small business sales in January this year, the decrease in the inflation rate, the fact that for the first time since September 1985 there were more immigrants than emigrants and the decrease in the number of insolvencies.

It is even more remarkable if one bears in mind that the index was adversely affected by the downward phase of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, rising interest rates as well as fewer car sales.

However, it is not only Assocom’s index that indicates business confidence. Apparently we find ourselves in good company when we look at the report of the Bureau for Economic Research at the University of Stellenbosch. The Bureau for Economic Research found that consumers were especially optimistic about the general economic situation and their own financial position. According to the Bureau it is also interesting to note that more consumers considered it a good time to make selective purchases.

According to the Bureau, this change in consumer attitudes will have a positive effect on the more expensive consumer items. I quote from the article:

The basis of this confidence is the fact that the Government is making these adjustments systematically and with a realistic consideration of the situation in South Africa. I am particularly privileged to support this Third Reading on behalf of the NP.

Mr Chairman, I am very grateful to the hon members who support the Third Reading of this Bill.

I want to respond very briefly to what some hon members have said. I shall begin immediately with the hon member for Barberton. This is the first time I have come across the concept of “net domestic savings” in the context in which the hon member used it. I have here in my hand a photocopy of a page of the quarterly journal of the Reserve Bank, and these figures go only as far as 1986. The hon member even gave us figures from 1987. They were news to us. The figures are not yet available to us in the department. We made enquiries at the Reserve Bank and they do not yet have the figures either. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, the hon member gave us the figures for 1987. Therefore, their accuracy or otherwise cannot be determined at this stage and we shall debate them when, in time, we receive the correct figures from the Reserve Bank.

The concept of “net domestic savings” appears on this page. There are four savings categories, and these appear under the heading “Financing of gross domestic investment”. The first category is personal savings; the second, company savings; the third, savings of the Government as a whole; and the fourth one is the provision for devaluation. In the table I have before me, this last category has the highest figure throughout. It covers the years 1979 to 1986. The figures for the provision made for devaluation are the highest throughout, and they are particularly high for 1986. In 1986 the provision made for devaluation was R24,8 billion out of a total of R34,3 billion. This figure represents the largest proportion of the total amount.

The concept usually used in this context is “gross domestic savings” because the provision made for devaluation is simply another method of saving. The concept “net domestic savings" does not mean net and gross in the normal sense of these two terms.

However, the CP now sees fit to do that footwork in order to actually manufacture a concept against which it can measure our so-called overspending, because when it did so on the basis of the gross domestic savings, as the term is normally used, the figures were not bad enough for their taste. They then sat and thought about how they could go about making the figures look worse in order to achieve their propaganda objectives. They then realised that if they deducted the provision for devaluation, they could call it net domestic savings. So they manufactured this concept in order to measure the figures on the basis of net domestic savings. Moreover, they then displayed prophetic insights into what the figures would be for the calendar year 1987. I think I should simply leave this little tale right there. It really is not like the hon member for Barberton to use such figures. This is not what I have come to expect of him. In an economy as broad-based as ours, and in the difficult times in which we have found ourselves, there really are easier ways to try to get at us than to play around with those concepts.

I had a look at the Hansard, and he was quite correct, but even in his presentation—I took only the first example of when he spoke of “gross”— he was so unused to working with the term “net” that he even forgot to use it from the beginning.

Oh, no. That is not …

Yes, he first spoke of “gross” and then of “net”. I am sure that to the extent to which he deals with that concept, he usually deals with “gross”. The term was manufactured for him to make the figures look bad. Let us simply leave it at that, but it does not actually become the hon member to allow himself to be used to do that footwork in order to try to get at us in such a way. It really does not make sense.

The hon member also commented on the way I answered the hon member for Yeoville on what was now the main consideration in not granting a general salary increase. Was it a fiscal consideration or was inflation the consideration? I do not have my Hansard with me, but I made this clear. I tried to make it clear, but if I did not make it clear enough, I shall repeat it here. I do not have the Hansard with me now, but I do have my notes which I want to read to hon members; this can then be recorded in Hansard as follows:

This is what I tried to tell the hon member for Yeoville. To the extent to which State expenditure is the cause of inflation, our standpoint in respect of a general salary adjustment involves an anti-inflationary measure. To the extent to which we want to keep State expenditure under control, however, a general increase would have tax implications, as the hon the State President clearly explained. The hon the State President did not mean that the tax implications would mean a reduction in taxation; no, he implied that a general salary increase would have brought about an increase in taxation. This is why we avoided it. There is therefore nothing sinister about these aspects. One can argue the matter any way one wants and come to the same basic conclusion. After all, there is nothing strange or out of the ordinary about not having a general salary adjustment. This is hardly the first time in history that this has happened.

I have here in my hand the summaries for the past few years. In the 1984-85 financial year the general salary adjustment was zero; in 1985-86 it was also zero. It is written here; it is nothing out of the ordinary. An interesting figure that comes to light from this, however, is that from the financial year of 1986-87 until the present financial year of 1987-88, the per capita increase in the income of people paid from the Treasury was no less than 20,2%—a per capita increase of 20,2% in the salaries of public servants in general. From the preceding financial year to the previous financial year, it was 12,2%.

We are therefore not talking about large-scale injustice here. We are not talking about a unique set of circumstances. We are talking about not having a general salary increase at this stage, after there had been a very large per capita increase the previous year, and after we had made provision for notch increases and adjustments specific to certain professional categories to the tune of R215 million. It is therefore dangerous to try to exploit this matter politically. It is also not actually fair to try to make a political football of a matter such as this. It is simply not right.

What do we find now? We find that the hon member says that Chief Minister Buthelezi has said that from 1 March parity will no longer apply; in other words, the Blacks will once again be the ones that benefit. The poor White public servants—the 35% that are White and the 65% that are not White—are not receiving a general increase, whereas the Zulus are receiving one again. The hon member wants to know from me whether the other Black states will also be receiving an increase. I want to say once again that there is no way anyone can interpret such a standpoint—by implication, such a question— other than by thinking that it is once again a question of what there is for the Whites and what there is for the Blacks. I can just imagine the way the canvassers will say that Chief Minister Buthelezi and his people are receiving salary increases that our public servants will now not be receiving any.

That is racist.

What implication can there be other than that this is a racist exploitation of the situation?

What are the facts of the matter? If one were to read the hon member’s Hansard I am sure one would not be able to come to any conclusion other than the one we all came to when we listened to him. The implication is that while we are depriving the public servants as far as their general salary increase is concerned, we are, on the quiet, increasing the salaries of the Blacks in the national states out of our back pockets in order to eliminate disparities. This is the impression one gets. The hon member is creating the impression that this was supposedly a recent development. I have in my hand a copy of an announcement by A L Schlebusch, DMS, Minister in the State President’s Office entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services. The date of issue is 11 September, 1987. I quote:

That elimination of disparity comes into operation on 1 March this year. That is still in the present financial year. It is therefore nothing new. It is old news. It is the elimination of disparities, which is an undertaking made long ago.

The elimination of disparities has already come a long way and I can do no better, as far as adopting a relevant standpoint on principle is concerned, than to mention two arguments which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I myself have raised repeatedly. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs used the following example. If a Black man and a White man each take an ox to an auction and there is no difference in grade or weight between those two oxen, what moral justification is there for the White man to receive more for his ox than the Black man receives for his? If this is not morally justifiable, why should a Black man and a White man with the same qualifications, doing the same work and carrying the same responsibility, receive different salaries? This is why the elimination of disparity is not simply a matter of figures. It is the implementation of a very specific, morally justifiable principle.

I myself have said several times in this House that I was grateful when job reservation was eliminated because one should not earn one’s living on the grounds of the colour of the back of one’s hand, but on the grounds of the calluses on one’s palms. What is taking place here is the execution of the undertaking the Government gave a long time ago. White and Coloured public servants are not being cheated. It is not a new issue. However, I can assure hon members that the perspective I have just given these hon members will not be found in the CP’s propaganda. What will appear in their propaganda is what that hon member has just said. [Interjections.]

However, there is one respect on which I can agree with the hon member for Barberton. We must eradicate corruption on every level. They are the people that today want to take total independence so much further so much faster than we have been able to thus far. If the hon member says here today that he wants us to discuss the audit reports of the self-governing states, I want to ask him whether, by that, he is implying that we should put obstacles in the way of their progress towards independence.

No, not at all.

Then what kind of independence is the hon member talking about?

They are not yet independent, are they!

They are progressing towards it. Part of that progress is working with financial matters. How is this dealt with at the moment? As he said, the Auditor General does the investigations in the self-governing national states at present. Those reports go to the Minister concerned, and the Government and the Treasury are therefore aware of them. If it is necessary to deal with money in another way, because there is a problem and things are going wrong, we have every opportunity and all the mechanisms at our disposal to do so.

That report goes to that legislative assembly. Does the hon member want us to tell them they are not capable of progressing along the road to independence and that we shall debate their financial matters for them in this Parliament and in this White House of Assembly? Is that what the hon member is saying?

No.

Then at what stage does he want the Black self-governing states to start progressing along the road to financial autonomy as well? He should stand up and tell us, then. If he does not want to adopt a standpoint based on principle as far as this matter is concerned, he should surely have an alternate standpoint on how much time it should take. He should stand up and tell us in what circumstances he would be prepared to support it. After all, we have numerous White officials with the necessary skill to take those people by the hand, financially speaking, and lead them towards getting their financial administration in order. Numerous officials have been seconded from this state to the self-governing and independent states.

The hon member should tell us this so that we can know what value to attach to their standpoint on independence and so that the Black leaders that will have to negotiate with them—if this country should ever be so unfortunate as to be governed by them—can know what kind of independence they can negotiate with the hon member and his party. The CP does not simply want them to be independent in the sense in which we have made them independent; they actually want “blow sweet feathers” to do with them. It wants them to be self-governing from now on and to buy land themselves in order to round off their consolidation in a meaningful way.

Moreover, the hon member should stand up in this House and tell us to what kind of independence, with regard to financial autonomy, they will be leading the people so that their own supporters can know what the chances of successful negotiation will be, or are they perhaps not interested in that negotiation? An agreement will have to be reached. That Black state will have to accept that the financial arrangements will be up to them. The hon member should therefore stand up and tell the CP supporters outside what kind of independence he has in mind when he talks about independent states.

The hon member also knows, of course, about the agreements that exist between us and the independent states. He is aware of the financial arrangements and, inter alia, of the Treasury transfers that are being made in respect of taxation on what those citizens earn here with us.

If he wants progress towards independence and autonomy in the sphere of State finances in those Black states to be dealt with in a different way from the way we are doing it, he should stand up and tell us how, in the light of the existing examples we have, this should be done. After all, it is only fair to ask such a question, or do they simply want to offer people independence and tell them to take it or leave it?

You have deviated completely from the point.

No, I have not deviated from the point, because the point is that there are two parties sitting at a table negotiating for independence. The man that signs to indicate his acceptance of independence has to do so on specific conditions, also as far as his financial autonomy and the extent to which he is capable of making decisions on his own finances are concerned. The path we are following leads in that direction, is one on which an increasing degree of responsibility is accepted by them. This is why we are not discussing their audit reports here; they are the responsibility of the Minister concerned. We are aware of what is going wrong there and what is not, and we are in a position to put the necessary remedial measures into operation if we are convinced, by the findings of the Auditor-General, that there is in fact something wrong. [Interjections.]

If I have misunderstood the hon member, will he please rise and set the record straight, because from the notes I have made here it seems very clear that the hon member wants to discuss the finances of national states in this House.

He wants to discuss the Auditor-General’s report here. That is what he said. I can then, of course, infer that he is not satisfied with their progress along the path towards autonomy in the financial sphere. He should tell us then whether he is opposed to this in principle or whether he is against our rate of implementation or the means we employ. I want to know this from him.

†I want now to refer to the hon member for Yeoville. I want to reiterate what I have said before about the five-year plan. I told him that we are in the process of refining it, and we are doing just that. In fact, I hope to be able to be in a position to recommend this to the hon the State President that details about the plan be released later this year. I also told him before that I do not see my way open to recommend it to the hon the State President when there are still uncertainties in certain areas, because the moment we release those details it may have a profound impact on markets and certain business activities in this country. Until now we have not felt, and we still do not feel, sufficiently confident about the accurateness of our figures so as to release these details and to accept the consequences of any subsequent actions.

I think it is unfair to the business community to release such important figures if one does not have a very firm idea that one will be able more or less to stick to those figures. That is why we are keeping this confidential until such time as we are sufficiently confident. It is not to keep him or anyone else in the dark, Sir. He will have all the information that he requires, but we have to wait until we are sure that our figures are accurate.

I would like to share the hon member’s concern about “VAT knocking”. I do not think there are many people who have written about it thus far who have clearly demonstrated that they really understand what it is all about. I look forward to the results of discussions that will take place with interest groups in order to handle that matter in the best possible way. I would, however, also like to call on the hon member to assist us to avoid the pitfalls, and certainly we have collected every possible bit of literature on the issue. He must help us to avoid two pitfalls which have proven to be virtually fatal to this tax system in other countries. The first one is exemptions, and the second one is differential tariffs or differential rates. Particularly in our situation, we must be extremely careful in order to avoid those pitfalls so as not in the process to destroy the administrative applicability and ease of handling that are so vital.

As far as the Baragwanath issue is concerned, I have tried my best to obtain a reply. I am not intimately involved in the firing or otherwise of the doctors and I am therefore not in a position to respond to that part of his question. As far as the money side is concerned I am obviously involved and, when the time comes, we can address that issue.

*I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for his contribution. I think the figures he mentioned were most informative. We have already had discussions on the matter and he provided me with information. I think that what he has said is very exciting.

I am very grateful for the standpoint the hon member for Gezina has adopted and for the very cordial request he addressed to the chairman of that particular institution. I think this is an issue that needs to be viewed from a global perspective and with a sense of responsibility towards the country. We should look a little beyond our own personal interests. I thank him for his responsible view in this regard.

I should like to thank the hon member for Newcastle for his explanation of why he regards the methodical nature of our economic planning as so important and also for his explanation of why he believes there has been an important increase in business confidence. I think we should proceed with this matter on the basis of strengthening that confidence.

Allow me to make a final observation, Sir. This is a matter we shall be debating in a little more detail later. We have to be very careful in revealing our monetary and fiscal policy in the sense that at this stage we should not allow the economy to overheat, seen against the background of the difficult parameters of our situation abroad. I think that in this respect we should all reflect a little so as to be able to adopt a very exhaustive and responsible standpoint when it comes to the Budget debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting the Bill under discussion. We believe that provision is being made in this measure for even better discipline in an already very disciplined Police Force. On the other hand it also affords any person who is guilty of an offence an opportunity to address representations before he is sentenced to imprisonment or a fine.

We believe that the amendments being effected are improvements and we shall therefore, as I have already indicated, take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

However, I want to request the hon the Minister, if possible, please to give attention to the envisaged new section 10 (6C) (h). It seems to me that it would be better if the Afrikaans wording could read: “’n ander bevel uitvaardig” instead of “die ander bevel uitvaardig wat hy billik ag”. I feel in this case the word “die” gives paragraph (h) a different connotation to what one would normally want. I feel the word “’n” would be more correct and clear.

Nevertheless, we take pleasure in supporting the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I note with appreciation the support, as expressed by the hon member for Bethal, which the Official Opposition accords this measure.

The SA Police this year looks back on 75 years of service to South Africa. The Force, in all its ramifications, has reason to be proud of its past. Not only did the SA Police Force succeed, over the years, in adjusting itself to changing circumstances, but it also developed into an extremely efficient and modern organisation. When one looks back on the Police Force’s past, which covers three-quarters of a century, it testifies to extreme loyalty and devoted service. There are also many tales of bravery and heroism. Many of the members of the Force have already paid the ultimate price in their sustained efforts to maintain law and order within our borders. We honour them for that. We gladly identify ourselves with the SA Police Force’s festival year.

As far as the Bill in question is concerned, to my mind there are four aspects which may be regarded is aims. In the first place it seeks to introduce certain textual improvements to the existing Act. This is purely technical in nature and need not be discussed. In the second place it is a fact that monetary amounts, which occur in every piece of legislation, have to be adjusted from time to time. In this case certain amounts with regard to fines are merely being brought into line with similar cases which apply to magistrates’ courts.

In the third place this amending Bill is aimed at establishing a shorter procedure, thereby streamlining the existing Act and eliminating certain deficiencies. Fourthly this measure will contribute to the realisation of even greater discipline within the Police Force, as was also correctly pointed out by the hon member for Bethal. It is true that the amendments, on the whole, are not far-reaching. There are, however, certain amendments with regard to section 17 of the Police Act of 1958.

In terms of clause 4 of the Bill, the powers of the Commissioner are in fact being extended. However, this only pertains to members with less than 12 months’ service. It seeks, as the amendment clearly defines, to extend the existing Act in order to make it possible to dismiss new recruits whose behaviour is to the detriment of good order, efficient administration and control or discipline of the Force.

Furthermore, a new section is being inserted in terms of clause 5, viz section 17A, which has to do with the summary dismissal of officers who are serving a prison sentence without the option of a fine. This merely brings action taken in this regard into line with legal procedures which already apply to members who are not officers. With all due respect, I wish to argue that what applies to non-commissioned officers and ordinary members of the Force, should apply all the more to officers. I therefore welcome the insertion of section 17A.

On behalf of this side of the House I gladly support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, as has been indicated, this Bill broadens the basis on which disciplinary action can be initiated within the SA Police Force, and as such I think it is a good improvement because it creates better powers to ensure more discipline and higher standards and also to take action against those who do not react positively to these aspects.

I immediately want to say that I read with interest the reports of what the hon Minister in the House of Representatives had to say in this connection when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill and it was debated in that House.

I found it interesting that the hon member for Bethal, of all people, reacted to the Bill on behalf of the Official Opposition, because if I remember correctly, the hon the Minister had something to say about the AWB in the course of that debate. He was asked whether these new amendments made it possible, among other things, for him to take firmer action against the AWB.

We already have an ironical situation in that it is the declared policy of the hon the Minister and the Government that members of the AWB are not accepted in the SA Police, yet we have AWB members sitting with us in this House. [Interjections.] I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s reaction in this regard, and I should like to know whether this is still his declared policy. I raise this point merely as a matter of interest.

†If the introduction of this Bill is an indication that the Government has learnt some lessons in regard to the disastrous consequences that follow when members of the Police Force—however few they may be—act without discipline and lose all perspective of the scope of their authority and duty, then this represents good news indeed for South Africa. Particularly over the past three years or so, during which period we have experienced extensive acts of political violence and great political tension in this country, there have been hundreds of incidents in which it has been alleged that policemen have not only acted outside the ambit of their authority but have actually committed crimes in the process, and that lies have then been told in order to cover up the truth of what has actually happened.

In the vast majority of these cases official versions of the facts in regard to what has taken place have differed from the versions of those who were witnesses to the events that actually took place. Time and time again the Government has reacted with little regard for the possibility that the truth may have been different from the information that they themselves have obtained. Allegations containing a different set of facts have been raised in Parliament, and particularly by hon members of the PFP, and very often we, as members of the PFP, have had to endure very severe criticism on the part of members of the Government for having raised these issues, and have also been subject to all sorts of accusations. We have been accused of launching a vicious and unwarranted attack on the Police Force, of bringing untested evidence to Parliament and that sort of thing.

In this respect I should like to refer specifically to the hon member for Krugersdorp who is the chairman of the standing committee. On numerous occasions, over the years, he has attacked members of my party and referred to untested evidence.

Are you protecting the hon member for Claremont?

Yes. I have great respect for the hon member for Krugersdorp’s competence as chairman of that committee and for the extent to which he allows open discussion, but I believe that he and I have a fundamental difference. I sympathise with his allegation that one may be dealing with untested evidence. We all know that can happen. When the Government answers questions on the Question Paper or makes statements and speeches in this House, however, it makes use of untested evidence to an equal extent.

It is therefore simply a matter of one piece of untested evidence being put against another. What morality demands that one should not bring such untested evidence to Parliament? I would prefer it if that could be avoided altogether and if it were possible to have these facts tested in a court of law or by some other judicial process without delay, so that such matters could be resolved and justice done at the earliest opportunity, but this is not the reality of our judicial process. These matters require investigation and court procedures bring about certain delays. It is therefore unavoidable that rumours do the rounds, that various allegations are made and that different versions of the facts circulate.

I want to refer to a few relevant incidents. The hon member will know about the case of Mr Tony Weaver, a case that arose from the shooting of seven alleged guerillas in Guguletu in early 1986. Very soon after that there were allegations that certain very unpleasant things had happened. We felt it was our duty to bring these to the attention of the public and of the authorities, and we did so. Time after time questions were asked by members of this party and answers given. There was a fair degree of impatience on the part of the then Minister of Law and Order about answering any further questions in this regard. Post-mortem inquests took place and court action followed.

As hon members know, Mr Tony Weaver of the Cape Times was then charged in terms of the Police Act for having disseminated false information. Not only was he acquitted on the grounds that he believed the facts in his possession to be correct, but the magistrate also actually found that according to the medical evidence before the court, the police’s version of what had happened was impossible. As a result the Attorney-General quite correctly asked for the record of the case in order to establish whether further investigation was necessary.

I feel with a certain degree of satisfaction that we may have made a small contribution to having this matter investigated, and we hope that the full truth will eventually out.

I refer now to the case of the State v Villet and Kruger, in which members of the SAP were actually charged with murder. It was a very ugly, unpleasant situation. [Interjections.] They were charged and eventually acquitted. The hon the Minister should listen.

The case is before the court at the moment.

I am not aware that the case is in court. They were acquitted. The hon the Minister must be wrong. In the case of Villet and Kruger they were both acquitted because there was a difference between the finding of the judge in the case and that of the two assessors. [Interjections.] It was common cause, however, that there was completely unauthorised behaviour. Those two gentlemen were acquitted of murder purely on the grounds that they had acted on a lawful command of their superiors.

In fact, the judge in the case referred to some of their superior officers as being blatant liars. It was a very ugly and unpleasant situation. It is something we would have liked not to have known about but if it did actually happen, how could one avoid doing something about it, knowing about it?

In that instance I am very pleased that at least some steps were taken, and one assumes that further steps are taken departmentally to deal with that kind of situation.

There was the case of a young Black man, Colin Gcoba, who was shot by one of the so-called “kitskonstabels” last year. Again there were official denials and official statements that all was perfectly in order. However, at a subsequent post-mortem inquest the magistrate found that the particular “kitskonstabel” was responsible for Colin Gcoba’s death in an inappropriate and unauthorised manner and the matter was—subsequently referred to the Attorney-General for his decision.

We all remember the Uitenhage case when the then Commissioner of Police was forced to give evidence to the commission, and not because he knew anything about the circumstances surrounding the subject of the commission’s enquiry he had not been there. The only reason for his giving evidence was to save the then Minister of Police embarrassment by explaining that the reason the Minister gave a completely wrong set of facts to Parliament was because he had been misinformed by his officials.

I am illustrating these matters to indicate how often things can go wrong. People lie and cover up. Why should that be different in the Police Force? The Police Force is one of the most important elements of the Public Service. They are very important; we are living in a tense, politically divided country. Their role in South Africa is vital.

Nobody must tell me that Parliament does not have a duty and a responsibility in this regard; a responsibility to support them when necessary but also to criticise them and to analyse their behaviour when necessary. This is the role the PFP has tried to fulfil. I am saddened by the fact that very often when we have talked about police or defence matters, because of their being sensitive subjects in South Africa, the debate has been more sterile than in the discussion of any matter in Parliament. The reason is very simple. Nobody on the side of the Government is prepared to stick his neck out, question things that have gone wrong, make bold statements and express some criticism because that is unpopular.

This Bill shows that the Government has learnt a lesson and I hope that the hon member for Krugersdorp, particularly, and many of his colleagues will take this appeal very seriously—that they too must realise that things can go wrong and do go wrong and that they have as much responsibility as the opposition to deal with those things and to expose them. They owe it not only to Parliament; they owe it to South Africa and finally they owe it to the decent policemen in the Force. They are in the majority but their lives are made impossible by the behaviour of the black sheep in their ranks, and particularly when these black sheep are allowed to get away with this sort of thing.

Mr Chairman, insofar as the Bill before us today aims to take more stringent steps against members of the Police Force who are guilty of misconduct, one wants to support the amending Bill wholeheartedly.

Although I am very critical of the way in which the police often conduct themselves I do, however, believe that the hon the Minister takes misconduct on the part of members of the Force seriously and is, as far as possible, taking steps to put a stop to malpractices. I find no fault with his intention of dealing more strictly with those who are found guilty of misconduct, but this legislation, as we have it here before us today, contains no provisions which will facilitate finding a policeman guilty of misconduct.

I want to make that distinction very clear. Although stricter penalties are now going to be made applicable to a policeman found guilty of misconduct, there is no mechanism which will facilitate convicting people who have committed misconduct.

There is the rub as far as the aims of the hon the Minister are concerned, namely the extent to which this legislation is going to achieve those aims.

It is all very well to augment the hon the Minister’s powers of disciplining policemen who are found guilty of misconduct. I believe the present system, in terms of which complaints against the Police, especially in politically orientated cases, are investigated by the Police themselves to determine whether the complaints are well-founded, results in many policemen, who have been guilty of misconduct, getting away with it. [Interjections.] That is true. The legislation will not lead to more convictions of misconduct. I want to make that clear, because in the proposed legislation there are no measures that cause more people in the Force who are guilty of misconduct to be convicted. All that the legislation does is state that those who have already been convicted, may be punished more severely. If the hon the Minister really wanted to clamp down on those guilty of misconduct—I accept that he wants to do so—he would have to improve upon the investigative procedure relating to misconduct, so that guilty persons can be convicted, instead of merely expanding his powers of punishing those who have already been found guilty.

I want to illustrate this analysis by means of a single example.

Order! By definition, from what the hon member himself said, this amending Bill is not concerned with making penalties heavier. He said so in his own speech. In that case the hon member is really not entitled to speak about it. This is an amending Bill, and the hon member should confine himself to these clauses, as printed. According to what the hon member said in his own speech, he really cannot embroider any further on his statement. I have given him the opportunity to make his point of criticism, but we cannot take it any further than that. If he did he would be out of order.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this point? In the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech—I have it here in front of me—emphatic reference is made to the facts I mentioned. I quote him when he says, for example:

I can quote other parts from which it is very apparent that the hon the Minister seeks to put a stop to misconduct in the Police Force with this legislation. My argument today is that the Bill does not, in fact, meet the hon the Minister’s objective …

Order! I understand what the hon member is saying. He has already said it, and naturally I allowed him to say it. But since the hon the member himself said that it did not fall within the scope of the Bill—the hon member should understand that it is an amending Bill—he must realise that the Rules strictly provide that the hon member may only speak about the clauses contained in the legislation. If the hon the Minister perhaps read something in another House which should not have been read there, I cannot rectify that matter. I have given the hon member the opportunity to make the point very specifically that this legislation does not go far enough. However, I do not want to permit him to base his entire speech on that. If I allowed him to base his entire speech on that point, which has nothing to do with the legislation, I might have to stop the hon the Minister if he wanted to reply to the hon member. That is why I want to ask the hon member to remain within the scope of the legislation. Here and there I shall give him a chance to deviate, but he cannot build his entire speech on something which is not in the legislation. Those are the Rules of the House. I did not draw up the Rules. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I address you further on this? In view of the fact that the hon the Minister made a Second Reading speech, surely you will agree that that speech forms part of the debate in the House this afternoon.

Yes.

Insofar as this is the case, I am able to base my speech on the points that the hon the Minister made in his speech. Then surely my speech falls within the Rules of the House?

Order! I have made it very clear—I am not going to repeat it now except that I could perhaps repeat it in the other language—that the hon member may point out, as he has already done, that this legislation does not go far enough. There are a few things he can do. He can move amendments at a suitable stage, as he might have done on the standing committee, for example. If he did not do so, he must remain within the purview of this legislation.

The hon member may point out weaknesses in the legislation, but I cannot allow him to devote his entire speech to that. He has already referred to that and I have allowed him to do so. After all, he himself said that it was not contained in the legislation. Therefore I must ask him to confine his speech to the clauses of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot make it any clearer than that. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I throw light on a point which the hon member made, if it will help you?

Order! I do not believe it falls within the parliamentary Rules to allow an hon Minister to deliver his speech twice. The hon member for Claremont may proceed, but I shall have to stop him if, in my opinion, his speech contravenes the Rules of Parliament. He can understand that. I want to put it to him in this way: I have already stopped him once. If I have to do so a few more times, I shall ask him to resume his seat. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I return to the debate on the Police Amendment Bill which, in fact, seeks to curb misconduct within the Police Force. I am correct in saying that the hon member for Green Point discussed the subject in detail shortly before I rose to speak. I think he specifically referred to the conduct of kitskonstabels and the many cases in which those members of the Police Force transgressed. Naturally the legislation before us today is an attempt to mete out heavier punishment to those guilty of misconduct and, in fact, to ensure that they are expelled from the Force. The problem with the legislation is that the objective of the hon the Minister, namely that of eradicating misconduct—he said it a few times in his speech—is not sufficiently covered by this legislation. The hon the Minister’s objective is not really being achieved.

There have been cases, for example, of people who have laid charges against the Police. The charges are investigated, and subsequently it is found that they were totally unfounded. I have an affidavit, which I sent to the hon the Minister towards the end of last year, in which I stated very clearly that when I wanted to lay a charge, I was asked by Col Kellerman to leave Caledon Square immediately. In terms of the emergency regulations he gave me two minutes to vacate his office; otherwise he would have locked me up. I made it very clear to the hon the Minister in an affidavit…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the argument which the hon member is now raising concerned with a policeman or misconduct on the part of the hon member himself? I ask for your ruling in this regard.

Order! The hon member may proceed, but he should confine himself to the clauses of this legislation. I honestly do not think that his conduct at Caledon Square falls within the ambit of this legislation. The hon member may proceed.

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

Please do.

I should like to know whether the hon member is a police reservist or not, and if not, why not.

That is not a question; it is a comment.

I want to make it very clear that I sent the hon the Minister of Law and Order an affidavit in which I gave a full account of that event. I made that declaration under oath. Last week the hon the Minister gave precisely the opposite reply to a question concerning what happened there. I maintain that the policeman involved, Col Kellerman, was in fact guilty of misconduct.

Order! The hon member must stop speaking in that vein; otherwise I am going to order him to resume his seat. The hon member may proceed, but this is the last time I am going to mention it. The hon member may proceed if he wants to.

Mr Chairman, your ruling is becoming increasingly clear to me. [Interjections.]

I want to return to a subject raised earlier in the debate, namely the so-called “kitskonstabels”. In the legislation specific provision is made that makes it easier to get rid of people who have been in the Police Force for less than a certain period. Special provision is made for people who have been in the Force for less than the normal time. According to my analysis, that period directly concerns those known to us as “kitskonstabels”. That subject has been discussed often, but what I want to say to the hon the Minister is that it is going to be of no use expelling them from the Force within six months …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, this specific legislation does not apply in any way to “kitskonstabels” because they are only temporarily in the service of the Force.

Order! That may be the hon member’s opinion, but the hon member for Claremont is entitled to argue the issue. We are therefore listening to his argument. The hon member may proceed.

The difficulty with the “kitskonstabel” is primarily that he, as I said earlier, is a cheap policeman. He is trained quickly and more cheaply, and the result is that he is viewed by the community which he is supposed to be serving as being a cheap policeman. He is seen as a second-class policeman.

You are a cheap member of Parliament!

Order! What does the hon member mean when he says the hon member for Claremont is a cheap member of Parliament?

Mr Chairman, I meant it in exactly the same sense as the hon member for Claremont did when he said that “kitskonstabels” were cheap policemen.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, that hon member should go and farm with his chickens. At least chickens lay eggs when they cluck, but that hon member does nothing when he clucks.

You cannot even cluck! [Interjections.]

“Kitskonstabels” are totally rejected by the community. In the Western-Cape region and in the rural areas—that is where the “kitskonstabels” are used on a large scale— “kitskonstabels” have, during the past few years, been guilty of misconduct towards the public in more cases than any other group in the Police Force has been. The hon the Minister knows that on various occasions we have sent him documentation—we are still doing so—to draw his attention to the fact that not only are these special constables not preserving law and order, they are destroying it from one day to the next.

From the legislation it seems to me as if the hon the Minister is aware of the problem and as if he is trying to get at these people in a subtle way. The only possible solution is that these people should receive the same training of the same duration as that received by White policemen at present. Otherwise the respect for law and order and judicial processes on the part of the people in those residential areas would be completely undermined. It would lead to a situation in which a kind of anarchy would arise.

Although I have been unable to raise the points I wanted to put forward and to link them to the specific legislation, I nevertheless support this Bill. I maintain, however, that it is not in any way going to achieve what the hon the Minister would like it to achieve.

Mr Chairman, I want to say just a few words about this legislation. We welcome this measure, because we think it may in fact bring more discipline to the Police Force. I think at the same time it will be welcomed by all those members of the Police Force who are as critical as we on this side of the House are of policemen who exceed their powers. There are many of those who believe that the excessive use of force by some members of the Police Force brings discredit to the Force as a whole and brings disrespect of the Force by the population as a whole. They will welcome this particular measure. I believe it is overdue and that it is time we had the disciplinary penalties strengthened so that they will act, I hope, as a deterrent in the future.

There are a number of instances of excessive use of powers and of lawsuits against the hon the Minister. In 1986 there were 116 lawsuits against the hon the Minister and the money that had to be paid in compensation in the successful lawsuits amounted to R7,5 million. That comes from the pockets of the taxpayers and I do not think that is viewed with very much approval by the people who ultimately are responsible for that money.

We have answers to questions that were put by the hon member for Green Point and myself which reveal that in 1986 there were a number of lawsuits brought against the Police for assault and unlawful arrest and in those instances just on R1,25 million had to be paid out in compensation. Recently, within the past four months, three cases have been brought to court where indictments have been sought to restrain “kitskonstabels” from acting violently against, harassing and unlawfully detaining residents of the townships at Oudtshoorn, Aberdeen and Hofmeyr in the Eastern Cape. These indictments themselves reflect a lack of discipline and I hope the Bill before us will act as a deterrent to future unlawful actions on behalf of the Police.

I have to add a few more words about the “kitskonstabels”, because throughout the country—practically in every township—we have had complaints of excessive use of powers, use of firearms, the harassment of inhabitants of townships and the use of violence against them. I believe these men have got to be properly restrained. Simply giving undertakings in court that they will behave themselves in future does not seem to work, because we have at least one case where the court order was totally ignored and the people concerned had to be brought before the court again to be restrained from continuing with their behaviour.

According to a reply given to me in this House, the number of “kitskonstabels” who had apparently already been so-called trained by August 1987, was 4 000. That is quite a formidable number.

Order! I think the hon member is now going beyond the ambit of the Bill under discussion.

Very well, Sir, I shall not go further on that. I shall simply say that the “kitskonstabels” are badly trained and they are the people who need discipline.

That is not in the Bill under discussion.

No, Sir, but penalties against excessive use of force by the police …

Order! By commissioned officers.

No, by the police and the “kitskonstabels” … Are they not part of the Police Force?

They are. He will say “yes” just now.

He will have to say yes. He is looking to see whether it is “yes” or “no”.

But he is no longer the Speaker. [Interjections.]

I just want once again to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that we strongly deplore the use of people who have not been properly trained and thereafter use excessive force in executing their so-called duties.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton must excuse me for not responding to her directly. I apologise, specially because I remember that last year, after my maiden speech, she was very friendly towards me.

On behalf of this side of the House I should like to support the Bill before the House. This measure is aimed at bringing about a textual improvement in the position of police officers who are guilty of misconduct and further to provide for the immediate discharge of officers in certain cases.

The hon member for Claremont, in line with what we have come to expect of him in this House, once again took the opportunity to further his campaign about police action. I think the hon member is in a spot of trouble, because according to what I read in the papers this afternoon, he has already said everything he could have said in this House.

I have said nothing.

Order! I do not think the hon member should refer to that.

He is referring to a speech that was not made.

[Inaudible.]

The Bill before the House is an honourable attempt by an honourable Police Force, which is sometimes exposed to the greatest provocation imaginable, to so restrain the behaviour of its members that they will always conduct themselves with the greatest measure of self-control.

I want to allege here today that it is not the task of a member of Parliament to turn up on occasions when trouble is expected and then to argue with those maintaining law and order about their actions.

[Inaudible.]

It would appear that that hon member feels guilty. The other day when I asked the hon member for Claremont, by way of an interjection, whether he hated the Police, he responded vehemently. I want to tell him that I do not know how he would behave towards people he really hated. He tried to blame Government policy for police action, but thus far all his speeches in this House have always been aimed primarily at police action in areas of unrest. I wonder whether the hon member is prepared to tell us how it is possible that he always knows …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member in order?

Order! I am listening to the hon member very carefully. I think the hon member must confine himself to the provisions of the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I will link up with that in a moment. I wonder if the hon member is prepared to tell us how it is possible that he always knows what is happening in places where problems are expected, and then always arrives there with a retinue.

Order!

I do not know what his electorate’s instructions to him are, but I question if they would be to …

Order! No, the hon member for Germiston District cannot continue in that vein.

He is being obstinate.

As you please, Sir. I maintain that existing laws and the implementation of those laws regulating and governing the behaviour of members of the police are adequate, that they are in accordance with similar legislation in the rest of the world, and that it is extremely inappropriate and uncalled for for members of this Parliament to interfere with the police in the performance of their duties.

I have acquainted myself with the situation by watching a video recording of an incident in January this year. I think it was on 13 January, when the police had to take action at a meeting where Govan Mbeki was going to address an audience in the Good Hope Centre.

Mr Chairman, when I wanted to refer to the same incident, I was stopped before I could say a word about it. I maintain that the hon member is referring to the same matter.

Order! The hon member may continue, but I appeal to him to confine himself to the Bill under consideration.

May I address you in this regard, Mr Chairman?

You may.

I want to try to show that the police acted lawfully.

The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The meeting was banned and the police had to ensure that it would not take place. This event was a wonderful example of the behaviour of the police, and from videos that were made—I just want to tell the hon member for Claremont that he referred to the incident at the police station, while I am referring to the previous incident—it appears that the officers carried out their instructions creditably and to the letter. As could be predicted, the hon member for Claremont arrived on the scene, as is apparent from the matters to which he referred a short while ago, but I am afraid of being ruled out of order if I discuss this matter at greater length. [Interjections.]

It is a good thing for us to support this legislation in this House, so that the Commissioner of Police will have the power to take appropriate action against transgressors. Hon members of this House must not abuse their positions to provoke the police and then seek publicity which harms South Africa’s case and South Africa’s image abroad.

The hon member for Claremont also tried to make other allegations—and he did make some—but I think he clearly failed in this regard. The hon the Minister will probably give a suitable reply. I therefore do not want to say anything about it at this stage. I would rather turn to certain provisions in the Bill itself. [Interjections.] Fortunately I am not the Press.

You take good photographs.

The amendment to the existing Act is in line with the erosion, by inflation, of the value of our currency, and the standing committee was satisfied with this. The proposed amendment, in terms of which a member will, in fact, have to serve a probationary period of 12 months before becoming a permanent member of the Force, is to be welcomed. Our Police Force and their actions are so directly linked to the image of our country that it is necessary for members of the Force to be absolutely beyond reproach.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and the Commissioner to ensure that this provision is strictly adhered to and that procedures are adopted to ensure that those who do not comply with the requirements are thus removed from the Force. Our Police Force must always remain a well-disciplined Force, and for the sake of the vast majority of its members who carry out their task with diligence and integrity, undesirable and dubious elements should not be allowed to remain in the Force. This side of the House welcomes the Bill because it provides for internal action by the Commissioner against members of the Force who abuse their positions.

I want to turn again to the hon member for Claremont and tell him that it must be borne in mind that there has never been any hesitation in taking action against policemen who are guilty of grave offences or crimes. They are as much citizens of our country as any other person and as much subject to the administration of justice. The hon member for Claremont would do well to remember this, but then those who complain must also know that they can expect no reaction in a case which is without foundation and to vague and one-sided allegations in this regard. The hon member is never in this House; he is busy gathering affidavits.

You are talking nonsense. You do not know what I am doing.

May that hon member refer to me as “you”, Mr Chairman?

Can we not rather be positive and take note of these things with gratitude and appreciation? I ask this of the hon member for Claremont at a time when we must build up this country and this Parliament. Let us positively take cognizance of the excellent work our Police Force is doing to protect us in this country of ours in which there is unrest at the moment. In doing so they are also protecting him wherever he happens to be.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to thank all the members of the standing committee who assisted in enabling the hon the Minister to table this excellent piece of legislation here today. I may say in passing that the hon member for Claremont was not a member of the standing committee. This is legislation which will meet the needs that continually arise.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by conveying my sincere thanks to the Chairman and members of the standing committee for the expeditious way in which they dealt with and disposed of this Bill. Furthermore I want to thank hon members on both sides of the House—in particular the hon member for Germiston District and the hon member Mr Hattingh—for their support for this measure. The same applies to the hon member for Bethal, who pledged his support for the Bill on behalf of the Official Opposition, and the hon member for Green Point, who supported the Bill with certain reservations, the hon member for Claremont, who argued that the measure under discussion did not go far enough, and also to the hon member for Houghton. I should like to thank them for their support for this legislation.

The hon member for Bethal rightly observed that this measure was an improvement. As he will also recall from the memorandum which we distributed, certain linguistic improvements were made to the existing Act. The hon member also referred to the envisaged new section 10 (6C) (A) and asked whether in the Afrikaans version the word “’n” should not be substituted for the word “die”. The note I have received here reads that inserting the word “die” there is a linguistic improvement, proposed by the Chief State Law Adviser. I also understand that this amendment was discussed on the standing committee and that it was agreed there that the word “die” is the correct and desired word. I think the hon member for Bethal will accept that we shall simply have to insert the word “die” there.

The hon member Mr Hattingh congratulated the Police Force on its 75th anniversary. I want to say that the Police Force is 75 years young today. It is a Force with a proud record. We are going into the future with optimism. There are many things we consider to be challenges, and I therefore want to thank the hon member for sincerely for his good wishes for this year and for what we are still going to do in future.

The hon member for Green Point also pledged his support for the measure, for which I have already thanked him. He also said that with this measure we would like to tighten up the discipline we want to exercise in the Force.

†The hon member for Houghton also referred to that. I want to state that this measure will assist the Commissioner of Police to uphold and maintain discipline in the Police Force.

*The hon member for Green Point also made a detour by referring to the AWB. I want to tell the hon member candidly and honestly that we in the SA Police Force find radicalism unacceptable. It is in fact the radicals who are at present causing us grave problems in this country, and who are taking the country along a road that leads to an abyss. That is why radicalism either to the left or to the right of the moderates is unacceptable to us in the Police Force. Consequently this is a rule we apply and radicals who are members of certain left-wing political groupings, cannot be welcome in the Police Force. They are not welcome in the Police Force, and we are going to take steps against such people in terms of the disciplinary rules of the Force. In the same way people who are members of radical right-wing political groupings, are not welcome in the Police Force. I should like to emphasise this.

Mr Chairman, I should like to put the following question to the hon the Minister. Is the hon the Minister assessing a member of the Force on the basis of his behaviour at a certain stage, or is he assessing the member merely on the grounds of the fact that he is a member of some organisation or other? Does the provision in this Bill apply to the behaviour of the member of the Force or does it apply merely to his membership of a specific organisation? For example, if he is an elder or a deacon, but is a member of the AWB, is he then suspended from the Police Force on the ground of his membership of the AWB?

Mr Chairman, let me give the hon member a clear reply to this question. A person who is a member of the UDF or of the ANC cannot be a member of the SA Police Force. We do not want such people in the Police Force. On the other hand we do not want a person in the Police Force who is a member of the AWB either. [Interjections.] This is our decision on the matter. [Interjections.] It is stated in this way in the Police Force Standing Orders. That is also how we act.

The hon member for Green Point made an observation about hundreds of incidents of poor conduct by the police that had ostensibly occurred during the past three years. That is more or less what the hon member said. He also referred to unverified evidence, and said it was used by us as well as by them. Today I should like to give the hon member the assurance again that any evidence that comes to our attention—that is to say mine as well as that of the Commissioner of the SA Police—whether supported or unsupported, will be investigated by the SA Police.

Once it has been investigated there is only one course we adopt in this regard. We do not decide on the matter ourselves, but submit all that evidence to the Attorney-General, an office which is not part of the SA Police, but part of our administration of justice, which all of us hold in high esteem.

We are pleased if this evidence can be verified, and I have numerous examples—the hon member knows about them—of evidence submitted to the attorneys-general which led to policemen being charged. At present there are cases in progress in which policemen are being brought to court so that the evidence can be heard and judged by a competent judiciary—judges or magistrates.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister what has happened to all the affidavits that I submitted to him last year? I have yet to hear anything in that regard.

Let me give the hon member a surprise. She will hear from me within the week.

*Any unverified evidence, information or whatever it may be is investigated by police officers and submitted to an attorney-general for submission to the court.

Let me get something off my chest here, while I am about it. The hon member referred to gossip. We in the SA Police are not perfect. We are just ordinary people. We are also part of the community and we also make mistakes, but that is why there must be a person who can adjudicate these matters. The hon members are now insisting on an independent commission to investigate these matters every time. Who is more independent than our courts? Who is more independent than the attorney-general? We cannot influence him. Who will undertake this investigation prior to the attorney-general—or prior to this commission—but the police?

Who draws up the report?

Investigations in this connection will also have to be carried out by police officers. They will also have to collect the evidence for this purpose, make enquiries and submit the evidence to the court, as we are already doing. We bring the evidence to the courts. It is not angels from heaven who suddenly go out to look for the evidence. It is police officers who investigate these cases and bring them to the courts.

We regard it as an honour, as the hon member for Houghton quite rightly said this afternoon—that by far the majority of policemen are people with integrity. I think it is a fraction of a percentage of the Police Force that are guilty of contraventions. Policemen are people who are highly regarded in our society, and they do not approve of excessive conduct by any policeman. These police officers, these policemen, are the people who carry out the investigations and who are prepared to submit the results to the courts.

Therefore I want to give the hon member the assurance that we investigate all these cases.

May I ask the hon the Minister whether he will accept that I am not all that interested in the following up of complaints or the charging of individual policemen? I should just like to request the assurance from him that the lessons learnt in the past in connection with procedures and the degree of control will be applied tomorrow in respect of future actions.

I should like to give the hon member the assurance that we are giving specific consideration to lessons that are learnt. After all, we can see what is happening. Hon members know that some actions by policemen are in many cases made into the norm, but they are not the norm; they are the exception. It is precisely those incidents that we are trying to reduce. In fact we want to eliminate them because they give us a bad name. No one here would like to have a bad name, and the SAP does not want to have a bad name at all.

We are people who want to be proud of our work. We want to be proud of our conduct. I can therefore give the hon member the assurance that we trying to learn from the lessons of the past. If something went wrong, we sit down and establish what went wrong and in what way we acted incorrectly. We try to train our men so that nothing goes wrong again. I want to give the hon member that assurance.

The hon member mentioned a few cases. I do not want to go into details except to tell him, as he knows, that a senior police officer was appointed to investigate the Tony Weaver case again. This dossier, with all the information, will again be submitted to the Attorney-General so that a proper reply can be furnished.

Senior police officers also investigated the case of Kruger and Villet. I misunderstood the hon member a moment ago; I remember now that it was another case I was thinking of.

There was the allegation that a police officer allegedly committed perjury. I do not know whether this is true, but once again the matter is being investigated and it will be submitted to the person who has to take a final decision in this connection, namely the Attorney-General. If prosecutions have to be instituted, we do not hesitate to take action even against senior police officers.

The hon member also referred to special constables, and I shall come back to this when I discuss the matter with the hon member for Claremont. The hon member for Claremont said he supported the Bill, but he did not think it went far enough. When one considers the intention of this Bill, one sees that it is now possible to take stricter disciplinary action because the penalties are being increased. They are being brought into line with normal procedure which also applies in magistrate’s courts.

All that is happening now is that it is easier for the Commissioner of Police, under specific circumstances and for specific reasons, to take stricter steps against a person who is still serving his probation. In this sense it will contribute to a tightening up of discipline.

The hon member also asked whether we took misconduct in the Police Force seriously. I want to give the hon member the assurance that the Commissioner of Police and I regard the misconduct of a policeman in a very serious light. [Interjections.] The hon member asked me whether I took it seriously, and I told the hon member I did, I did take it seriously. If the hon member listens carefully the two of us could perhaps made a little progress. However, I doubt whether it is possible because he is so opposed to the police that he refuses to believe anything good of us.

The point is that we regard this in a serious light, and we should like to eliminate it as far as possible, particularly because the majority of South African policemen and policewomen are not guilty of misconduct.

Together with the hon member for Houghton and other hon members the hon member made a great issue of the special constables. The view of the SAP on special constables, and any other policeman, is that we do not tolerate conduct beyond the limits that are laid down. We do not approve of such conduct. The SAP takes steps against any person who exceeds the limits.

The special constables are temporary members of the Force. That is why these regulations are not applicable to them …

Order! That is in fact my problem. I do not think that the subject of special constables is in any way relevant to the Bill.

May I address you on this, Sir, because the hon members expressed a great deal of criticism concerning these special constables, and I should at least like to react to it briefly? I undertake to be very brief.

Mr Chairman, the section which is being amended simply says “a member of the Force”. It does not refer to a commissioned officer and it does not refer to a permanent member. Are the so-called “kitskonstabels” therefore not just members of the Police Force while they serve in the SA Police Force? If they are, these regulations should apply to them.

Order! I am open to correction. The hon the Minister may continue.

What do we want to achieve with these amendments to the regulations. We want to make it easier to take steps against a person who has not yet had 12 months’ service.

Up to now it has been more difficult to take steps against such a person, but if a special constable exceeds his limits, we can pay him off immediately and dismiss him from the Force. They are employed and paid on a day-to-day basis. Consequently we do not even need this regulation to take action against them. The action taken against special constables is in reality more serious than we are able to take in terms of this one. That is precisely one of the reasons why the special constables remain within the limits.

†They know we can act against them immediately and discharge them from the Force within 24 hours. They can be given notice and be discharged the next day.

*That is the action that can be taken against them. I should like to make the point that the hon members are losing sight of the fact that the radicals in South Africa fear the special constables. [Interjections.] The radicals have taken a beating from the special constables. The radicals tried to control the Black residential areas in South Africa. What did we do? We stationed the special constables there. They were adequately trained to perform certain tasks. They cannot investigate crime, but they can ensure a police presence. The radicals and revolutionaries do not like a police presence. The fact that we stationed them there brought them into conflict with the radicals. [Interjections.] Now we find that the hon member for Claremont is an advocate for the radicals in South Africa. [Interjections.] I know it is true. He sits in this House, and he and his friends are advocates for the radicals and the revolutionaries in South Africa. An attempt is being made to …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is it in order for the hon the Minister to say I am an advocate for the radicals and the revolutionaries?

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw the word “revolutionary”.

I shall withdraw the word, Mr Chairman. The hon member is an advocate for the radicals, and I do not doubt this at all. The hon member also said—I think the hon member for Houghton also referred to this—that the community rejected the special constables. [Interjections.] That statement is as far removed from the truth as can be. Hon members must go and speak to the ordinary people in the Black residential areas.

†They want the special constables there, because they have been maintaining law and order.

*Those special constables chased the radicals out of the Black residential areas. That is why such a fuss is being kicked up about these special constables. [Interjections.]

With this we are not trying to imply—I want to emphasise this once again—that we approve when they go too far. In those cases we take steps against them, and pay them off, and charge them in the courts. But we must keep the correct perspective on these matters as well, and realise what good work these people have done in South Africa. To a large extent they have helped to restore law and order in some of the Black residential areas. Daily we receive numerous requests from people in the Black residential areas—from Black people, from the Black councils—to locate more special constables there, because they are preserving law and order in the Black residential areas in an excellent way. [Interjections.]

The hon member said we should train them for longer periods. I agree. We could train them for longer periods. At this stage we are investigating what kind of additional training we can still give them, so that we can use them even more effectively.

I have already reacted to the speech made by the hon member for Houghton as regards the aspect of discipline. I think this will help the Commissioner.

The hon member also referred to the many claims that have already been paid out. That is true, and it is a source of concern to me that the SA Police are having to pay out many claims. We are trying our best to reduce the number. However, we must just bear in mind what kind of work the SA Police are doing. What are they engaged in doing? In by far the most cases the SA Police is involved in incidents in which violence was committed, in which there is strife, in which they must try to maintain order. They find themselves between groups that want to jump at one another’s throats and assault one another. Under all these circumstances the SA Police must try to preserve order. [Interjections.] The hon member must also preserve that perspective. If it is said that we are paying out a great deal in claims owing to the misconduct of policemen, it does not mean that we approve of this. We are trying our best to reduce it. However I just want to ask the hon member to preserve a perspective in this regard, to admit it and accept that the police always take action when there are problematical cases that have to be dealt with. After all, things can go wrong there.

The hon member for Germiston District said he supported the Bill. I thank him for his contribution. He said we had an honest Police Force, that was doing difficult work. The hon member is correct, and I should like to thank him for his support. It is correct! It is an honest Police Force, that is doing important work.

Finally I should like to make a few observations about the unfortunate events in Kakamas on Saturday, 13 February this year, when two children were killed and a number of people injured during a police operation. I want to assure hon members that the Commissioner of Police and I deplore the tragic incident and regard it in a very serious light. Against this background I want to express sympathy, on behalf of the Commissioner of Police and myself, with the next of kin of the survivors’ as well as with the injured. Because I regarded the matter in such a serious light I gave immediate instructions, in consultation with the Commissioner, for a senior officer attached to the Police Head Office in Pretoria to investigate the incident as a matter of urgency. In this connection two murder dossiers have already been opened and the events will be examined in the minutest detail. Since the incident in question is at present the subject of a judicial inquiry which will be submitted to the Attorney-General, I want to let these few observations suffice. I just want to make a serious and urgent request to hon members—I have the hon member for Claremont in mind, who made certain statements about this matter to the media, and all who want to derive personal and political benefit from these unfortunate events—and ask them to refrain from any speculative reporting, statements or suspicion-mongering before this judicial process has taken its course and the matter has been fully disposed of.

Finally I want to say that this matter …

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

I just want to finish my sentence, then I shall listen to the hon member.

Finally I want to point out that the representative of the Coloured people in that area, the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Representatives, discussed this matter with me last week. He conveyed his concern to us, and with reference to that conversation I told him that we would investigate the matter urgently. Consequently I am announcing here today that we regard this matter in a really serious light. That hon member adopted a responsible procedure. He stated his case where it had to be stated, so that an investigation could be instituted and the matter could be rectified. He did not, however, give wide publicity to this unfortunate case so that the sorrow and suffering of people could be abused. He did not do that. He acted in a different way to other hon members who abused this unfortunate situation in a disgraceful way. Once again I want to appeal to hon members to stop doing this, so that no one can gain advantage from it, except perhaps ourselves and a small group of radicals in our country. We are only harming the image of the SAP, and ultimately our country as a whole.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware of the statement made by Captain C van der Westhuizen, liaison officer of the SAP in Kimberley, in which it was officially stated that the matter was a criminal incident in which people were shot. The policeman has therefore already issued a statement about the findings of the outcome of the investigation to which the hon the Minister is now referring.

As I have said, murder dossiers have been opened and this matter will be examined in the minutest detail. I shall let that suffice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition supports the Bill under discussion which is a financial, and to a large extent technical, Bill. I am not going to occupy much of the time of hon members.

The standing committee debated this Bill at length. In spite of the fact that we are supporting this Bill, I should like to express just one concern at this late stage. Perhaps the hon the Minister, or at a later stage his law advisers, can reassure me in this regard. I am referring specifically to clause 6 which deals with the dependants of a member of a pension fund. He will now be given more freedom to designate people who will be able to benefit from a pension fund when he dies. As the clause now stands, it reads:

This is followed by further provisions. I am concerned about the provision which states that if the fund traces possible dependants within 12 months and the deceased has designated someone who should receive the benefit and that designated man or woman is not a dependant, this provision will come into effect. Let us suppose that the deceased who was a member of the pension fund designates only one of his dependants to receive the full benefit, to the exclusion of all other dependants. I really do not believe that that can be the intention of this clause. I want to inform the hon the Minister that we must make very sure of the position first.

With these few words we gladly support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members of the Official Opposition for the support which they have given to this Bill. I agree with the hon member for Barberton that the specific matter which he singled out will have to be cleared up. As he put the matter here it sounds like a logical conclusion.

The amendment of the legislation on pensions was necessary because all the power was in the hands of the trustees when a choice had to be made between a nominee and the dependants of the members. This has always been a contentious issue. I am very sorry that subsection (b) of clause 6 was not written into the legislation long ago, because it protects the interests of minors where there is a danger that their guardians would act against their best interests.

With regard to the Stock Exchanges Control Act, 1985, provision is made enabling the Registrar of Stock Exchanges to sign forms on behalf of shareholders in certain circumstances if they cannot be traced at that moment. However, no time schedule is spelt out here and no conditions are laid down with regard to what it means if that shareholder cannot be traced. I shall be pleased if the hon the Minister could give a little more clarity on what it means specifically when that shareholder cannot be traced and the Registrar of Stock Exchanges may in fact sign on his behalf. I am pleased that we are able to have this legislation passed so quickly by Parliament today.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just spoken is obviously an optimist who believes that one gets things through quickly and without obstacles. May I tell hon members that there is an obstacle in this Bill. When one reads the speech of the hon the Minister one will see that he is moving the Second Reading of the Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill, 1987, but when one looks at clause 33 of the Bill one finds that we are actually dealing with the Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill, 1988.

The other problem that exists is that this is not the Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill, 1988, because we have not yet had a first amending Bill. Therefore this is not quite as straightforward as the hon member thought it was, unless we deal with it by way of a textual amendment. Unless we accept the fact that the word “second” in clause 33 can be deleted by you, Mr Chairman, without the necessity for a formal amendment, we shall have to go into Committee and move an amendment—I hope we shall be able to do that immediately after we have dealt with the Second Reading—in order for us to deal with this, because we cannot pass a second amending Bill when we have not had a first amending Bill, and we cannot pass a 1987 Bill in 1988. [Interjections.]

Having had that little bit of fun, hon members will permit me to deal with matters which are perhaps a little more important. In the first place I should like to get a reaction from the hon the Deputy Minister in regard to the future of prescribed investments, because we are dealing with that issue now. In clause 2 we are making certain amendments in regard to the insurance companies in particular. In my opinion the whole future of prescribed investments is an issue which is now a talking point in the financial community. One of the things that we really need to know, is what the Government’s attitude in regard to prescribed investments is. Are we going to continue to force people to invest in fixed interest securities or are we going to leave it to their discretion as to whether to invest in them or not?

One of the classic excuses—if we may use that term—which arise for the plight of the Government Pension Fund is the fact that it is only entitled to invest in fixed interest stocks and therefore it has a major problem. The question is whether it is sufficient to have adequate supervisory powers over financial institutions and then to allow them to invest as they like. If that is the ideal, is the hon the Deputy Minister satisfied that the State will obtain the necessary investments from the community in order to ensure that it, like the other institutions, is able to borrow adequately? This is becoming a very important issue for the financial community.

One of the things which really trouble me is that to my mind there is still insufficient incentive for ordinary people and for small investors to buy long-term fixed interest stocks where, in many cases, they should be buying them. The other problem is that there is not a sufficient market for small quantities of stock. If one ’phones an institution or a stockbroker to buy particular stock to the worth of R10 000, R20 000 or R30 000, they virtually do not want to do business with one, because it is unprofitable to them and the stocks are not available in those quantities. It is then that one starts having a different price range and a different return. There are different levels for wholesale transactions and smaller transactions and the whole matter is a very real problem.

I cannot see why ordinary people should not be able to buy a small quantity of fixed-interest, long-term stock from a local authority, the Government, Eskom or from any one of these institutions, in the same way that a small investor buys 100 shares. The two issues that arise from this are the future of prescribed investments and the availability of this type of stock to the ordinary man in the street.

Another issue which arises—and this is related to the ones I have already mentioned because obviously it affects insurance companies, their future and investment capacity—is the whole issue of the insurance company’s position regarding tax. There is an uncertainty which hangs over insurance company shares that are quoted on the Stock Exchange at the present moment regarding the future tax position of the insurance industry. I think that that uncertainty needs to be removed at the earliest opportunity and, whereas in the case of some things the hon the State President thought it fit and proper to make announcements at the opening of Parliament, there should perhaps have been some announcement during the debate on the part appropriation, as I have indicated, so that we can try to remove this uncertainty regarding the tax position of prescribed investments, because there is no doubt that it has an effect on quoted shares. Obviously it affects the insurance industry as such in the conduct of their own business.

The other matter regarding insurance companies which I think requires attention is the question of linked policies. In this case there is obviously a need for an education process so that the public will understand that the value of a linked policy can go up and then go down again; that the value of a linked policy, unless there are certain guarantees given, is not always bound to increase. At the present moment there are already disappointed people who listened to the advertisements—some of them on radio and some in newspapers—where they were told that with an investment of so much a month, one could expect a considerable return on that investment at the end of the road. They were convinced by these advertisements that a linked policy was a marvellous investment and that they had to get into it. Since 19 October, however, there has, to put it mildly, been a very serious downward movement in the Stock Exchange where some shares have lost a very substantial portion of their value. The value of linked policies has also dropped, and many of these policyholders are now finding to their disappointment that if they have to cash in these policies now they will have a completely different picture to what they had before.

I wonder whether it should not be an essential requirement in the advertising of this type of financial instrument—and it goes beyond just the linked policy; it applies to other things as well— that one should state very clearly in one’s advertisements that this type of investment may go up and that it may also go down, so that the public know exactly what they are getting and what they are buying and what the risks are when they buy a guaranteed policy or a linkage to shares. This applies, for example, to unit trusts and it is also the case in the UK, and I know the hon the Deputy Minister is a great student of their financial activities. In this way the public will be educated as to what they should be buying, and they will not simply yield to a fast sale as a result of this being imposed upon them.

The last general point I want to make is that this Bill deals with both banks and building societies, and also with all sorts of other financial institutions. In the Standing Committee on Finance, I have—right from the outset of the new building society legislation—advocated the concept that banks and building societies should be under one hat—one piece of legislation should apply to both.

When one sees what is happening in the marketplace today between banks and building societies in regard to the nature of the competition and in regard to the various activities which are going on there at this time, then the case for one Act to cover banks and building societies becomes stronger every single day, and I would ask that the hon the Deputy Minister should apply himself to this matter and ask the Reserve Bank, because it now falls under their purview, to apply themselves to the formulation of one statute that covers both banks and building societies, because I believe that that is extremely urgent and needs to be done.

There are a couple of aspects of this measure which should be examined in detail. I want to deal with the whole question of dependants, not only the aspect raised by the hon member for Barberton. I intend to discuss the point he mentioned in a moment, but first I must refer to the principle involved.

There is not unanimity in respect of the provisions relating to dependants and those relating to the right of the manager of a pension fund to dispose of the benefits after a member’s death. There is a very great difference of opinion among pension fund managers themselves, the pension fund industry and members of the committee. To my mind this measure represents a certain degree of compromise, and we need to look at it again because substantially conflicting principles are involved.

Certain inroads are now planned into the freedom of testation that has hitherto existed in South Africa in order to bring us more into line with other countries. One needs to ask, however, whether there should not really be freedom of testation in regard to pension fund benefits. If one is going to limit it in that respect, however, should similar rules not apply to ordinary testamentary disposition? In other words, going back to the old law, if the general rule in regard to testamentary disposition is legitimate portion, in terms of which one was not allowed to deprive one’s children or wife of an inheritance, what makes a pension fund benefit any different? If that principle is to hold in respect of testamentary disposition, it should be applied to this particular aspect. There seems to be very little logic in having a measure such as this in relation to pension funds and not in regard to any other testamentary disposition.

A case can be made for both sides of this argument. A man may suddenly, at the wrong age— I hesitate to suggest to this House what that age might be!—develop a seven-year itch, something which could also happen after 14, 21, 30 or 40 years of marriage, decide to throw aside his wife, who has stood by him all his married life, and leave all his money to some young lady. Exactly the same thing can happen to a woman; I only have to look around me. A woman may well discard a man after having been married to him for a long time. In these circumstances should a lifetime’s work be allowed to be summarily disposed of for no real reason?

On the other hand it can be argued that one should be allowed during one’s lifetime to do what one likes with one’s assets. Why should one therefore not be allowed to do what one likes with the disposition of one’s assets after one’s death? This is not an easy problem to solve, and the definition of “dependants” in this Bill is in my opinion a compromise which needs to be looked at again and carefully studied. I am not sure that we can solve that problem here today.

The hon member for Barberton drew attention to a simple situation. If one nominates a beneficiary who is a dependant, but who may not be one’s most deserving dependant because the definition of “dependant” has been changed, that power cannot be used in order to assist a deserving dependant. That is obviously not a desirable situation. I feel that another Financial Institutions Amendment Bill should be submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance and that we should then spend some time on the definition of “dependant”.

I should like to say that we support the measure but, unless I can be assured that we can effect a textual amendment and that this can be done by the other two Houses as well, I am afraid I shall have to move that we go into Committee in order to correct this unfortunate little error.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to speak after the hon member for Yeoville. He is a financial expert who displays an exceptional conscientiousness, as can be seen by the apparent error he found in this amending Bill. However, he is nevertheless a financial expert who reminds me of events that took place in connection with another financial expert. Someone went up in a hot-air balloon to do a little exploring. Unfortunately a strong wind carried him along and later on he had no idea at all where he was. When, after a long time, he noticed a man down below, who incidentally was also a financial expert, he shouted to him: “Where am I at the moment?” The financial expert on the ground called out: “You are in a balloon!” What one can remark about this is that his observation was 100% correct, but totally irrelevant.

I think the hon member for Yeoville will also be able to agree that in the consideration of this measure on the standing committee—in particular the contribution of the standing committee with regard to clause 3 and clause 6—we can claim that this exercise of the standing committee was an illustration of the particularly successful nature of this dispensation in which we find ourselves at present—the way in which a standing committee can propose an alternative wording by means of consensus. We in turn as a legislative authority, in the true sense of the word, can have a say in the improvement of a bill. In this connection the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions was particularly helpful with the finalising of the wording as we now have it before us.

The aim of clause 3 and clause 6 is to establish a healthy balance with regard to the right of a member of a pension fund to be able to designate people personally, but on the other hand not to detract from the right of the dependants of the particular member to be cared for adequately by the contributions which this member made to a pension fund. In my opinion, and in view of the wording of the Bill under discussion, this balance has now been struck and the net has been drawn tightly enough so that a person may still acquire the right to designate who he wants to be the beneficiary of his pension fund, but it has nevertheless been stated widely enough so that there need be no concern that the dependants of the person involved will not be cared for adequately. This wording creates this particular balance which is being sought. It is a privilege for me to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the number of printing errors is remarkable. I am referring now to the printing error which both the hon member for Rissik and the hon member for Yeoville mentioned.

I want to begin by referring to the speech made by the hon member for Heilbron. It seems to me as if the problem concerning dependants who have been nominated occupied the time of two meetings of the standing committee. Yet it seems as if they have not quite found a solution to the problems. The question of the distinction between dependants and nominees is of course a problem. Then there is also the question of self-supporting children who later became dependants. I nevertheless think that this Bill really is a great improvement on the previous legislation. Previously a nominee did not really have a chance. After he has looked after the dependants, the trustee of the pension fund can now pay attention to the nominee as well.

It is also interesting that whereas the manager of the pension fund involved could previously nominate people from outside—the hon member for Yeoville also stated very strongly in the standing committee that this was an unacceptable practice—we are now dealing here with the dependants and nominees. Now the question is one of determining who is independent and how much remains for the nominees. I think one should really give this measure some time, and see how it functions. I know that the private sector feels unhappy about the fact that the discretion in this case has been taken away from them with regard to who can be nominated and what they can contribute to the pension grant. Since the standing committee has in any case discussed this question twice, I feel that we should now give this measure a chance and see how it works in practice.

I find it interesting that there is so much trouble here, as the hon member for Yeoville mentioned. A man leaves his wife and seeks the company of a married woman. He does not have the opportunity to remarry before he dies and in the meanwhile there are various children with different mothers. The poor person who has to pay out the pension does not know who has to receive the money or who has been designated.

The amendment as moved, however, is a great improvement and the hon member for Barberton should first give it a chance. I do not think that we are opposed to coming back if it does not work well. This is a complex problem and it is a matter that one will have to learn to apply better through experience. The question is whether one could ever apply it correctly.

Of course the hon member for Heilbron knows that if one buys shares the purchaser has to pay his share within a certain period. When he has paid his share, he is entitled to receiving that certificate. When the purchaser has therefore paid for the shares, he is entitled to the certificate. If the seller cannot be found at that stage some of these clauses come into effect.

The hon member was present in the standing committee and I am surprised that he …

The point I was trying to make is simply this: What does “if the purchaser cannot be found” mean in legal terms? What does it mean if I say that a man cannot be found?

I am not a lawyer, but if that person is not at the address supplied by him it means that one cannot trace him. If one takes into account that the buyer is entitled to claim that certificate when he has paid, the process can come into operation if the broker cannot trace that person. That is how I see this law in practice.

†I should like to address the hon member for Yeoville who mentioned a very interesting aspect about prescribed investments. Many years ago the De Kock Commission recommended that we try to abandon this and that we allow a freer capital market. I think this was also a recommendation of the Franzsen Commission. Then followed the De Kock Commission with the same recommendation.

Now, at this stage, we are really looking at this problem. However, we want to look at it together with the whole tax situation of insurance companies and pension funds. At the same time one has to consider it in terms of the present position in the capital market. We are hoping to have the White Paper on the Margo Commission’s recommendations available by 16 March 1988.

The hon member enquired about the tax situation of insurance companies. I think we cover that in the White Paper. Once the White Paper has been submitted, I agree with the member that we will also need to look at the whole of the insurance industry again.

The hon member mentioned the advertisements for linked policies. We have to warn people that they may get out less than they expect when they participate in a type of share system. They are not necessarily going to receive the large sums advertised in newspapers.

When one looks at the pension funds, it is interesting to note that they have changed the whole system in New Zealand. Payments have to be after taxed income, then investment income is taxed after pension funds but one then enjoys a tax-free pension. They expect to save 800 million dollars in New Zealand. The United States did the same exercise and calculated that they could save about 80 billion dollars if they adopt the new system.

Having looked at all the new types of insurance policies on the market like the five by five for example, we have seen these problems.

One has to ask whether we do not have deposittaking activities going on in our insurance industry. If there are deposit-taking activities, one has to ask why the rules governing banks and building societies do not apply to insurance companies taking deposits. I think this is a difficult case. It is also very interesting that there is a swing towards investment in insurance companies and pension funds, and away from banks and building societies.

Is this because of inflation and the fixed interest rates? Is it because of the tax allowances? I think we have to take all these factors into consideration when we look into the insurance industry in the near future. We are preparing a new Bill on insurance. I do not think it will be ready this year, but next year. However, for the information of hon members I can say that we hope to bring a new Bill on banking and building societies to the House this year. I think the hon member for Yeoville and I agree on this point that we all look forward to having one Act covering all building societies and banks, or, shall we say, all deposittaking institutions.

After we have considered the whole question of prescribed investments we can also look at the possibility of fixed interest stocks, as the hon member for Yeoville mentioned. I should like to mention to the hon member that it is under discussion, but we first want to wait for the White Paper dealing with the Margo Commission’s report, and then we shall follow this matter up. The problem with fixed interest stocks is inflation. Another very interesting aspect in this respect is the question of tax-free income. At this stage the amount is R1 000. Are we going to go on with the R1 000 tax-free system under the new system, or will we, like the Canadians, try to get away from all these tax expenditures?

I think I have covered most of the points mentioned by the hon member for Yeoville. Some of his points are not really covered by the Bill before us, but I have tried to answer the hon member and to tell him what the thinking of my department is on those issues.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

Clause 33:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in saying that the Official Opposition also supports this Bill. I shall not discuss the contents of the Bill; I think the Second Reading speech explained it sufficiently. It is an essential and practical measure.

I merely want to point out that it is to be welcomed that in future the Auditor-General will serve on the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ board. This can only be to the advantage of the profession and the public sector as a whole. It is also worth mentioning that the accountants are satisfied with the contents of this Bill, and we therefore have no objection to its being passed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the Official Opposition for supporting this amending Bill.

†The Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board recommended various amendments to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act of 1951. There is nothing contentious in the legislation before us, but nevertheless I believe the accounting and auditing profession are pleased that this legislation has now reached its final stages. The original clause 5, designed to regulate the liability of auditors in respect of reports made by them to the board, was considered unnecessary by the Standing Committee on Finance and was consequently deleted.

The main features of the Bill as amended are to extend the powers of the board relating to examinations—and the profession does welcome that—to increase the level of the fine for theft and fraud and to alter the requirements in respect of particulars that apply to letterheads of audit firms because of amalgamations. The changes taking place in the profession have necessitated costly changes such as letterheads of firms being changed in order to accommodate all the names of the partners. Now, realistically enough, it is being limited to those branches that are affected by the changes. Furthermore, there is an amendment to increase the amount of certain fines as recommended by the board.

On behalf of this side of the House I have pleasure in supporting the amending legislation.

Mr Chairman, we, too, support this Bill as amended in the Standing Committee on Finance. The original Bill as introduced contained a clause indemnifying registered accountants and auditors in respect of any report or statement which they made regarding one of their fellow registered accountants or auditors. This clause we opposed as we believed it was not necessary, and we were pleased that it was withdrawn. For that reason we support the Bill.

We are further in favour of the fact that the Auditor-General will be included as a permanent member on the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board.

The importance of an independent audit will be recognised by hon members of this House. The importance of the independent verification of reports cannot be overvalued and is of vital interest to hon members of this House, particularly in the case of reports to Parliament which have been in fact verified by the Auditor-General who himself reports to this Parliament.

Auditing is a developing profession, particularly in the sense of computerisation. We would like to believe that by being a permanent member of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board the Auditor-General and his staff will participate in developments taking place in the accounting profession. I hope they will regard this as a valuable experience.

In the second place, the inclusion of the Auditor-General will also facilitate communication. That is also important, particularly as in a large number of instances private firms are conducting audits on behalf of and under the direction of the Auditor-General. In the third instance his permanent membership ensures that the training of auditors will continue to meet the requirements of his staff in the public sector. That is also important.

Finally, in addition to the more technical amendments that have been mentioned, we support the fact that the board should prescribe the syllabus whereby articled clerks and others ultimately qualify as accountants. This is obviously the one final check on the quality of their work and their expertise. We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member for Pinelands for his support of the Bill. I am very pleased to be able to follow him once again in this House, and that this time will not contradict anything that he said.

I think this Bill is essentially one of updating and streamlining. There are not any basic changes to principles that are involved. I think there are definite improvements and certain practical and pragmatic suggestions. We on this side of the House agree that the role of the Auditor-General is most important. We think it is a good thing that he should be included on this board. I think it is also essential that the Registrar of Close Corporations, an innovation, be included.

There is not very much else to say on this Bill and in order to save time, let me just say that it gives me great pleasure to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Wynberg said that he did not want to waste hon members’ time and I agree with him. I merely want to say that we are very proud of our accountants, and I think the legislation in connection with our accountants and auditors is excellent. In conclusion I merely want to say that I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

We have very serious problems indeed with this Bill. If one were to look at the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, one would say that this was one of the most innocuous and insignificant little pieces of legislation to have come before this House in a very long time.

When one looks at the department’s memorandum accompanying the Bill—as is the practice these days—one is inclined to conclude that this is a very innocuous piece of legislation dealing solely with the closing of uneconomic branch lines, something which has become a reality in the past few years, and that this Bill actually deals with the Port Shepstone-Harding branch line, closed to rail traffic as far back as November 1986, and the road transport service which has been put into operation in its stead.

Let me tell the hon the Minister—I shall come back to it—that I think that the Port Shepstone-Harding branch line has already been sold, because the holiday-makers who were at the South Coast in December, during the Christmas season, were already travelling on the Port Shepstone-Harding branch line’s new excursion train.

They had a braai, drank beer and alighted at various spots.

Who told you it was sold?

We shall come to that. So actually you need authorisation for what you have already done in the past, but we shall discuss that aspect. In any event, the branch line has already been put into operation in anticipation.

It is also stated in the memorandum to the Bill:

I shall come back to that. I am merely quoting this portion of the memorandum to point out that what has to happen, according to this measure, has already been happening for more than two months.

I have a serious problem with this Bill. The Port Shepstone-Harding branch line is being presented as a smokescreen to allow what is probably the most far-reaching South African Transport Services Amendment Bill introduced here in a long time to slip through this House. The two sections they want to amend are key provisions in the South African Transport Services Act. They want to amend section 10 by an addition. Section 10 provides:

Then there are four exceptions. They are now introducing an addition in terms of which legislation is not necessary either for a person to purchase a railway line. That is the effect of this amendment. The amendment of this clause consists of the addition stating that a special Act is not required for “the acquisition of a railway line in terms of an agreement with the South African Transport Services”. The situation that now exists is that in the past no railway line could be constructed without legislation, except for the few exceptions which were of absolutely minimal importance. Now, however, railway lines can be purchased. By virtue of this statutory amendment, the whole South African railway network can be sold without further legislation having to be passed by this Parliament. That is a tremendous intervention.

Section 9 is the other section which is being amended by the insertion of subsections 28 and 29. Section 9 deals with the powers of the South African Transport Services, and all these powers—we know them all—are set out in approximately 27 subsections in the existing Act.

Now, however, they are adding the following in clause 1 of the Bill, and it is “so wyd soos die Heer se genade”, as the last but one Prime Minister of South Africa once said:

This Bill under consideration therefore empowers the hon the Minister and his department to sell the South African railway network as a whole for R10 or R10 million, and this Parliament will no longer be able to say one word about it. That is how absolutely far-reaching this legislation is. I do not want to refer to it in derogatory terms, but this is a ragged little speech, five paragraphs in length, which has been presented in this House to pilot this aspect through Parliament. That is what it is, Sir. I want to say—and I am not saying this as a member of the Official Opposition, but as a member of this Place—that as far as I am concerned, coming to this Parliament in such an absolutely nonchalant way with such important legislation is a display of arrogant contempt for this Parliament.

Was it not before the standing committee?

I was no longer a member of the standing committee. I think that in the standing committee we refrained from expressing any comment. We did not support it in the standing committee.

Alex is awake.

Yes, he is awake for a change.

You are asleep on your feet.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg is stating his party’s policy on this issue. I should like hon members to give him an opportunity to do so. The hon member may proceed.

The total railway network of the SATS can be sold up or bought up under Parliament’s very eyes without anyone being any the wiser. Last year we received a White Paper from the Government on privatisation and deregulation in the RSA. It was proposed that at some or other time a comprehensive debate on this White Paper would be conducted in this Parliament. The White Paper deals with all the aspects of privatisation and deregulation. That debate has not yet materialised, and I wonder whether the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament would not like to take note of that now, but there he sits talking nonsense.

In his opening address the hon the State President referred fleetingly to privatisation. He said that “significant progress” had been made with investigations into privatisation. That is what he said in general. That is a very cursory statement.

Subsequently he elaborated, to a certain extent, on the road networks which would be administered as toll-roads, stating that agreements had been concluded with two consortiums. Then he referred to the large State undertakings and held up the prospect of that matter being dealt with by the Ministers in their budget speeches. Now the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs comes along with this Bill which, if passed by this House, would mean that the sale of the SA Government’s single biggest asset, ie the South African Railways, would indeed have been finalised, without a debate on the White Paper and without the Ministers having dealt with the matter in their Votes. And to a very large extent it would, in fact, make such a debate a meaningless exercise.

I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether an in-depth investigation has been instituted and whether data is available with regard to the financial implications of this Bill. I know that this question was also put to him on the standing committee. I nevertheless put it to him once more. I myself want to say that the financial implications of this measure ought to be presented to this Parliament in the sense that the total value of the SATS’ railway network and the land on which it is situated—that can also be transferred—should be made known to this House. How many billions of rands worth of railway assets is the Minister now being authorised to sell by this House?

The hon member for Roodepoort put this question on the standing committee. He wanted to know how many other branch lines would come into consideration for privatisation. He specifically asked how many kilometres of railway line were possibly going to be sold on the same basis as the line between Port Shepstone and Harding. He has not yet been given an answer to this question. The conclusion I can therefore draw is that no investigation has been conducted, but that we are nevertheless being asked here to pass a Bill, the implications of which have not in any way, at this stage, been determined in depth by anyone. That is the position as I see it.

What is more, the hon the Minister states in his memorandum that the line between Port Shepstone and Harding is going to be sold. The hon the Deputy Minister now says that this line has not yet been sold. I am now asking him whether that line has already been sold or not. After all, that line has been put into operation by a private body as if it has already been sold.

If it has not been sold, it may already have been leased out.

Yes, if it has not been sold, what other agreement has been negotiated? Let us suppose that as a result of this debate this Parliament decided that the Bill under discussion would not be passed by Parliament. What would then happen to that railway line? Let me state again that I am not saying these things merely in my capacity as a member of the Official Opposition, but more broadly speaking in my capacity as a member of this House as well. Such highhanded action on the part of hon Ministers and their departments must stop. I am saying this clinically and objectively, Sir.

Whilst I am speaking about the railway line between Port Shepstone and Harding, let me ask specifically whether an investigation was carried out to determine whether the SATS itself could not run the relevant railway line as an excursion line. Could that railway line not preferably be operated on a profitable basis by the SATS itself—the SATS, which owes so many millions and has such tremendous financial problems? I also want to ask whether it is really necessary for such sections of railway line to be alienated. Is it really necessary for the relevant proprietary rights to be transferred? Particularly in regard to a section of line, could one not rather determine whether it could, in fact, be profitably operated so that it can be leased to some undertaking or other for a few years? At a later stage, when they have come to their senses again, and after the relevant term of the lease has expired, the SATS can take back the line and operate it at a profit, rather than going ahead and selling it now.

Now I want to say a few things about privatisation as such. As I have said, this is a Bill that makes it possible for the entire railway network of the SATS to be privatised—in other words sold.

This is not actually the proper occasion for this, but here we have another case of putting the cart before the horse. There ought to be an opportunity for a comprehensive debate on privatisation based on the White Paper. This should have waited until the relevant Ministers, as proposed by the hon the State President, had dealt with this aspect in their budgets. He said that it would “be dealt with by the responsible Ministers in their budget speeches”. Now the cart is being put before the horse. In regard to my party I very briefly want to state that we are not opposed to privatisation per se, but that each case will be considered by us on merit, and we shall see whether it is in the interests of South African society as a whole.

This legislation, which the hon the Deputy Minister is trying to have passed—with the support of his party he will probably succeed—is a blank cheque to a Minister and his department. If it is passed, this House and this Parliament will no longer have any say in the matter. [Interjections.] Then the SATS has obtained the right to sell, something for which it is necessary to introduce legislation.

You have gone off the rails!

Sir, I prefer not to reply to that remark by the hon member for Langlaagte. I do not think he has ever seen a rail in his life.

He has never been on the rails!

Yes. Precisely. The Government is nevertheless going ahead with privatisation. The Government is now selling the profitable sections of the SATS’s enterprises. The hon the Minister held out this prospect a short while ago—on a Sunday evening, I think—on television. He spoke about the liabilities which the SATS now had to sell. The portions they are going to sell, however, are profitable ones. I have never heard of a burden of profit. I have heard of a burden of debt, but a burden of profit is something that can only be conjured up in the fertile imaginations of those on the other side of the House. [Interjections.]

My conclusion, as far as this matter is concerned, is that with this privatisation the State is sidestepping its obligation in regard to the establishment of infrastructure for development and services, particularly in those areas of the country where this cannot be done by the private sector.

In the past the SA Railways and Harbours have been run in such a way that the profits made by one section could be employed to finance an essential service elsewhere. They have broken away from that, from what they called “crosssubsidisation”. It is very easy to come forward with such arguments in a sophisticated country like Britain, but in a country like South Africa, which is comprised of Third-World and First-World components, a country in which development is still vital, I find it incomprehensible for one to stop furnishing what is regarded as a service rendered by the Government. When it was, in fact, regarded as a service rendered by the Government, a fantastic network of railway lines developed throughout South Africa. Then, by means of cross-subsidisation, profitable portions of the enterprise made it possible for other branches to be maintained and for networks to be extended. The present situation we are faced with is unfortunately comparable to that of a tree slowly dying from the tips of its branches downwards.

What do you think your bullet trains would cost?

But that is not going to be done. Now they no longer have the entrepreneurial spirit and imagination to consider this. [Interjections.]

In my constituency they have terminated a passenger service between Louis Trichardt and Messina.

How many passengers…

It does not matter how many passengers are involved. For 70 years that train service operated from Johannesburg to the South African border. [Interjections.]

Then they replaced it with a third-class bus service. That bus service operated at a loss of approximately R6 000 per month or per year, I cannot remember exactly what the hon the Minister told me or quoted to me in writing last year. It did, however, furnish a public transport service covering the whole northern area of the Transvaal and of South Africa. Infrastructurally it was an absolutely basic service. [Interjections.]

It is very easy for someone living in Kuils River to laugh when he only has five steps to walk to catch a train or can drive in his car around the corner to the post office. I do not expect a Deputy Minister of the State to do so, because those people—and there are thousands of Black people too—are being deprived of all public transport services. [Interjections.]

Order! I hear a spate of interjections from my left and my right. The hon member may continue.

Now they are terminating that service. This little bus service did not incur losses which were a fraction of a decimal fraction of what they gambled away on the international money markets. They are using it as an excuse to terminate that public bus service.

They did not, however, stop the legal and illegal taxis from snatching up the passengers from under their very noses and transporting those people at much greater cost. Sometimes those taxi-drivers intimidate the passengers, forcing them to make use of their services rather than the bus services. [Interjections.]

That is all part of the tragic situation in which we find ourselves with the SATS today, a situation to which they now want to give effect in this legislation.

The Government also envisages, if I am correct, selling this asset with a view to discharging its national debt.

Where do you read that?

What is going to be done with that money? Was that not held out as a prospect by the hon the State President? What is going to be done with that money? The Government is going to use it to pay its debts. [Interjections.] The debts incurred by gambling on the international money markets are probably going to be discharged.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Waterberg … [Interjections] … I mean Soutpansberg has insinuated that somewhere or other the hon the Minister or the Cabinet has gambled with money. In my view that would be tantamount to an offence or a crime.

Order! I think the hon member is putting his case in fairly strong terms, but not in those terms. The hon member may proceed.

Let me use the word “speculate”. They have taken money belonging to the Railways and, without prior notice, speculated on the international money market. Someone who uses someone else’s money, without prior notice, to speculate on the international money market can be said to be gambling.

Why do you not wait for the investigation?

The hon the Deputy Minister has asked me why I do not wait for the investigation! When I was a member of that standing committee, a solemn undertaking was given that the report would be available at the end of January. Why is that report not available yet? Let me tell hon members why that report is not yet available. It is not yet available because they are afraid of the consequences of that report! [Interjections.] What is more, they have broken their word. My information is that they are so afraid of the findings that they want to see whether they cannot delay it until after the coming by-elections. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister must tell me when we can expect that report. There was an absolutely solemn undertaking that that report would be available at the end of January. Let me ask the chairman of the standing committee: Where is that report? [Interjections.]

Watch out, you are not going to sleep at all tonight!

I shall sleep very soundly tonight.

They are now realising fixed assets built up over virtually a century. They are now going to realise those assets to get out of the mess caused by the losses they have incurred.

Once they have done that, and if they are in power for a few more years—something we hope and trust will not be the case—we shall again be in the same financial mess. [Interjections.] What will they then sell to discharge their debt? Are they going to sell the islands around South Africa? Are they perhaps going to sell a piece of our territory to Mozambique or Swaziland … [Interjections] … or are they going to start selling our arms, our cannons and our tanks? That is the problem one is faced with when one is dealing with spendthrifts in the Government.

The Government views Mrs Thatcher with great admiration. South Africa is a developing country, however, and surely a State railway system is essential to this country. We do not expect this Bill to bring about any improvement in our transport network, and that is why we oppose it in the strongest terms.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: While the hon member for Soutpansberg was speaking, the hon member sitting next to the hon member for Langlaagte said: “Tom, jy is ’n bitterbek.”

Order! The hon member must raise points of order immediately. I cannot accept points of order so long after the event. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon member to walk out of the House. One of the rules on a point of order is that it should be raised immediately.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg asked me a question, and I should like to begin by answering it. The questions for oral reply on the Question Paper for Friday, 19 February, clearly indicate that on Tuesday, 1 March, a question put by me was going to be answered. The provisional number of the question was No 19, and the question to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs read as follows:

[Interjections.] The hon member must give me an opportunity to answer the question, or does he not want the question answered?

Now you are scot-free!

I do not think I shall answer the question any further. Hon members of the CP do not think it is essential. Let us leave the matter at that. [Interjections.]

In moving an amendment that this Bill be read this day six months, the hon member for Soutpansberg made a great fuss about a large number of reasons why the Bill should be read this day six months. I do, however, very clearly recall the previous Minister of Transport Affairs, Mr Hendrik Schoeman, on several occasions offering the railways transport network as a whole, across the floor of this House, to anyone who wished to purchase it. He did so on innumerable occasions. The hon member who is no longer a member of my standing committee, but who spoke in the place of a member of the standing committee who is not here today, did not tell us that on the standing committee that party did not vote for or against the Bill, but abstained from voting on the Bill in its entirety. [Interjections.] When we asked the hon member about that, he said that he wanted to clarify matters with his caucus and that that was why he was not voting. What is interesting is that the hon member and his party now say that they want the Bill read this day six months, something which, as I understand it, is the strongest form of condemnation applicable in this House. [Interjections.]

I am therefore asking those hon members what we should do with a railway line which had been closed as far back as 1986. That railway line lay there unutilised, paralleled by a road transport service introduced by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, as he undertook to do. It is the policy of the SATS that when a railway line closes down, alternative transport in the form of road transport is introduced after negotiations with the relevant community.

What is interesting is that this railway line had been unutilised for almost two years. In the interim there had been floods and the line had not been maintained. Before the condition of the railway line could deteriorate any further, certain persons saw the possibilities inherent in this line and made an offer to the SATS to have the line reopened. Now numerous questions are being asked, and in this connection let me quote the hon member: “The profitable sections are being sold.” This railway line was not profitable, however—after all the research it was found to be an uneconomic line—and therefore it was closed down in 1986 and replaced by alternative transport, in accordance with the policy.

Then along came some locals with a low cost structure, particularly a lower cost structure than the SATS as far as overheads were concerned, something which is quite possible. By way of illustration let me just tell the hon member that in America there are a few hundred of these private branch lines or spurs being operated successfully by small, individual undertakings. These private spurs join up with the large national networks in America, which are also in private hands. Those people make money because their cost structure, their maintenance and all concomitant elements are considerably lower. For example, I saw a woman selling tickets before she went off to work, and the stationmaster is also the checker. During the day he does everything on the station. With a lower cost structure it is possible for other people to operate the line more successfully than the SATS is able to. We do not know yet, however, whether this railway line can be operated successfully or not, because at this stage it is still being operated on contract. Now the hon member is asking why they operate the railway line.

And he says it has already been sold.

No, this railway line has not been sold. [Interjections.] Let us not argue about that now. The facts are known. If the hon member had been on the standing committee, or had discussed this aspect with his standing committee member, he would have known that the line had not been sold, but was at present being operated under a contract.

When all those tourists visited Southern Natal during the holiday period, the locals carried out a test. They thus found out, for example, that over a period of 37 working days during which the railway line was in operation, more than 100 000 people were transported. They are not, however, solely involved in transport; they are also involved in concomitant elements such as catering services, entertainment, excursions and tours. It is no longer an ordinary train, but a tourist train—the “Banana Express”. That is what the train is called. It still has to be determined what the final leasing sum will be for the period during which it is operated by the ACRC.

It is very clearly stated, in the memorandum on the aims of the South African Transport Services Amendment Bill, that it is essential for these people to take over the railway line and for the Bill to be passed as quickly as possible. Those people have to incur heavy costs for the maintenance of the railway line and the equipment, and with every passing day those costs increase, because at the moment the railway line is not being maintained as it ought to be, since the SATS does not want to operate that line and the local company does not yet own it, because it is still being operated under contract; the railway line is still being leased. I merely want to ask the hon member one question: Would the CP, if it ever came to power—preserve and protect us if that should ever happen …

Just you wait until after the by-elections!

Can the hon member for Overvaal not give me a chance to make my speech? I should like to make use of my turn to speak. He must forget about my turn to speak and use his own.

You are very touchy this afternoon.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal will now stop making interjections. The hon member may proceed.

My question to the hon member for Soutpansberg is whether they, if they came to power, would not subsidise Black passengers according to bullet-train principles. That is my question to them. On the one hand the hon member says they are not opposed to privatisation in principle, but listening to them, one finds them opposed in principle to every case discussed here in Parliament. That is the historical picture thus far.

I thank the person who put this copy of the Patriot in my letterbox. Without the trouble of looking for one, I can now ascertain what is going on in the ranks of the CP. If it was the hon member for Soutpansberg—he is laughing so heartily—I thank him for it. Previous reference has been made to the relevant publication. In volume 7, number 6, of 12 February 1988, there is this blunt headline on the front page: “Volksbates uitverkoop”. I quote from the article:

Hon members must note the choice of words—

What is interesting is that the relevant company is a small company consisting of people from the Port Shepstone-Harding area who came forward and made an offer. It will be asked—the question was also put on the standing committee—why this was not put out on tender. The simple answer is that these people came forward and made an offer to conclude a contract. There were no other people who came forward to do so.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to ask the hon member for Primrose why they did not come forward with ad hoc legislation to sell the Port Shepstone-Harding railway line to the Port Alfred County Railway Committee. Why did they not do so? Then we would not have had this problem.

The answer was very clearly given, during proceedings of the standing committee too. There are so many unprofitable branch lines at the moment which could possibly be privatised. One would then need to have recourse to Parliament each time in order to privatise them piecemeal. The answer we received during proceedings of the standing committee apparently satisfied members of the standing committee, because no one voted against the legislation, although the CP did abstain from voting. The answer was that this would be general or enabling legislation which would make it possible for people to come forward, when notice was given of lines being closed down, to make proposals for the maintenance and operation of that transport service. And that is what the local community did; otherwise we would have to come back to the SATS each time to get permission to have a piece of branch line privatised so that the assets created there could, in fact, be maintained and operated to the benefit of the community. I want to appeal to the relevant communities to declare themselves willing to operate those railway lines. The SATS, however, cannot continue with cross-subsidisation. It does not have that kind of money. We already have a problem maintaining what we have, without having to borrow money on a large scale to offset operating losses. I do not think we can continue doing so.

For the sake of the future of the SATS and 200 000 workers, a more economically orientated management policy will have to be adopted, as proposed by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs. I support him in that endeavour so that those 200 000 people at least have a future in this respect; otherwise the oil in the widow’s cruse will run dry, and what do we do then? In the long-term cross-subsidisation will have to be phased out in the Transport Services. Let me leave the hon member for Soutpansberg at that for the moment.

I want to come back to the railway line we are going to privatise. It is interesting that this line could not make money, and for two very simple reasons, ie that volumes were too small and that the goods transported were too low-rated to carry heavy tariffs. It was therefore decided in 1986, after negotiations, to close the line down. I do not want to go into the whole history of what happened, but these people decided, on an experimental basis, to see whether they could operate the line economically. They want to transport additional pulp-wood, processed timber, sugar cane and concomitant products and, in particular, they want to develop tourism in Southern Natal. The first 37 days, on which it was operated on an experimental basis, have indicated that there is, in fact, demand for such a service. The question remains, however—we are going to put it to them after a year—whether they can operate it and cover their costs. I sincerely hope so.

I have spelt out the reason why this line is no longer being operated by the SATS. I merely want to add that the approximately 122 km line between Port Shepstone and Harding, at present known as the Banana Express line, will satisfy a local need. I therefore support the passage of this Bill because it will give those people the opportunity they need and because it will give other places and bodies displaying similar initiative an opportunity to conduct those negotiations at short notice, without the need for an Act. I merely wish to make a request to the hon the Deputy Minister that when the SATS does conduct such negotiations, the annual report should contain a clear report to Parliament of what lines have been privatised and what the relevant costs and conditions are. Information about how this was dealt with should be made public. This project gives me great hope for the future of certain areas. There are large areas round us which have similar branch lines.

I want to pause for a moment to reply to criticism from the hon member for Soutpansberg. The hon the State President promised that privatisation would be dealt with carefully and circumspectly. Here is an example of that. Negotiations were conducted over a long period, the Bill was submitted to Parliament and nothing of a clandestine nature was done. Another advantage of privatisation, which we should spell out clearly, is that a line which had been closed down was again put into operation.

I have frequently stated my view on privatisation, and that is that we should not replace a public monopoly by a private monopoly. We shall have to deal with this circumspectly when it comes to the workers and the service that is furnished, and in addition I would be opposed to this leading to a further concentration of power.

This example redounds to the credit of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, the SATS and the Government, because in this case those requirements are being complied with. I have every hope that in each case those heavy demands will be met as we go along. It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I confess to being astonished at the action of the Official Opposition. Firstly, without any indication of this in the standing committee, they have opposed the Bill, but secondly, they have opposed it with the most stringent form of parliamentary opposition by an opposition party, namely to move an amendment that the Bill be read this day six months. This sort of action demeans the strength of the opposition when it comes to something really important.

If they object so strongly to the fact that this Bill does give wide powers—and there is no question about the fact that it does give wide powers—why did the Official Opposition not move an amendment in the standing committee to try to alter the Bill so that the powers were not quite as wide; or, secondly, why did they not even seek now, at this late stage, to ask for a Committee Stage and then to move an amendment to enable a change to be made so that the powers are perhaps not as wide or that the Bill should be referred back to the standing committee before it is implemented? But no, Sir. They come and make this enormous fuss at this late stage and move this amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. I do not actually think that they want to change the legislation. I think they are quite happy with it as it is, but they want the opportunity to make a big fuss.

When the hon member for Soutpansberg told us about this train that has been going for 70 years he seemed to think that that was a sound reason for continuing with that train service, regardless of any commercial considerations and regardless of how much money it might be costing the South African taxpayer to keep that train on the go. No, Sir. He said it had been going for 70 years, and I am afraid that that sums up to me very aptly the attitude of the Official Opposition—if it is old it must be good, and we therefore want to keep everything that is old in our society, including outdated laws, apartheid, partition and all these things.

That is unfair and a lot of nonsense.

What is the effect going to be if we listen to the Official Opposition?

We have here a railway service that was discontinued. Steam enthusiasts then came along to try to create something that would be of advantage to South Africa. Firstly, it would create job opportunities for a number of people—and to create job opportunities is not all that easy, as the Government knows from setting up decentralisation plans. It costs thousands and thousands of rand to create one job opportunity in a homeland, for instance, and we have objected to that. In this instance a number of job opportunities are created.

I want to read what the managing director of this new group that is going to run the “Banana Express” says in the February 1988 issue of Travellog. He said:

That, Sir, is the second reason why we should be supporting this Bill. It does help South Africa. It attracts tourists to this country so that they can see some of the wonderful things that exist in this country and perhaps go back with a different impression from that given to them on television overseas.

This railway started on 4 December 1987 and, up to 10 January this year, had carried more than 10 000 passengers, if not 100 000 passengers, as the hon member for Primrose said.

Thank you.

It had carried 10 000 passengers during this holiday period. In a short period of time 10 000 people got enjoyment out of it.

The hon member for Primrose said 100 000 people.

Yes, he made a mistake.

A big mistake.

I do not have to apologise for his mistakes, but the point is simply that I believe that this Alfred County Railway is possibly a viable project. It helps to privatise a portion of the SATS. More similar things could be done and, I hope, will be done to act as a sort of worldwide tourist attraction in this country.

We therefore have no objection to this Bill whatsoever and we shall be supporting it.

Mr Chairman, I have been requested by the hon the State President to read on his behalf the following statement with reference to the floods in the Free State, the Northern Cape, the Western Transvaal and parts of the Northern Transvaal.

It was with deep regret that I learnt of the loss of life, damage and disruption which followed the widespread rainfall and floods in the Free State, large parts of the Cape Province, the Western Transvaal and Northern Natal.

I wish to express on behalf of the Government and the people of South Africa our sincere sympathy to those who have been affected in some way by the loss of life and damage caused by the floods. We cannot fail, however, to express our humble thanks towards the Almighty God that the drought which lasted over large parts of the country for many years, has been broken. As in previous similar situations, the Government will do everything in its power to assist the victims of the flood. The Ministers concerned, State departments and other authorities are already acting in this regard. I wish to express the sincere thanks of the Government towards everyone who has already assisted the victims of the flood and heavy rains in their hour of need.

As in the case of Natal, where a Cabinet committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the Minister of National Health and Population Development, Dr Willie van Niekerk, and which is still responsible for dealing with the flood and its consequences in Natal, a special committee has again been appointed under the chairmanship of Dr Van Niekerk to determine the extent of the latest flood damage and to submit recommendations to the Government on dealing with the consequences of the floods. The members of the committee are the following: Dr W A van Niekerk, Minister of National Health and Population Development (chairman); Dr D J de Villiers, Minister of the Budget and Welfare in the House of Assembly; Mr A A Venter, Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the House of Assembly; Mr D M G Curry, Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives; Mr P J Badenhorst, Deputy Minister of Development Planning; Mr S J De Beer, Deputy Minister of Education and Development Aid; Mr D M Streicher, Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs; Mr G S Bartlett, Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology; Mr J A van Wyk, Deputy Minister of Water Affairs and of Land Affairs; Mr R P Meyer, Deputy Minister of Law and Order; Mr W N Breytenbach, Deputy Minister of Defence; Dr A I van Niekerk, Deputy Minister of Agriculture; Mr W A Cruywagen, Administrator of the Transvaal, assisted by members of the Executive Committee; Mr L Botha, Administrator of the Orange Free State, assisted by members of the Executive Committee; Mr E Louw, Administrator of the Cape, assisted by members of the Executive Committee. This committee is authorised to co-opt other members where necessary.

On behalf of the Ministers’ Council and the House of Representatives and the Labour Party in particular, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to convey our sympathy to the families of those people who have lost their lives and to those who have lost property. I hope they will draw strength from the support they will receive from all over South Africa in this time of distress.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the recent flood damage in the Orange Free State and in the Northern and Eastern Cape, notice is given that investigations are afoot with a view to implementing relief in respect of damage inflicted by floods on housing in the Coloured communities. Families so affected by flood damage to their housing, must identify themselves to the management committees or local authorities concerned, who in turn should contact the regional directors of the department at Bloemfontein, Kimberley, Upington, Port Elizabeth and George for appropriate action.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the UDP I want to express my absolute shock and disappointment about the incident that took place at Kakamas. As a native of this town and someone who knows the people of Kakamas, I find it even more difficult to accept that something like this could have happened to my people. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister of Law and Order to suspend the police officers involved immediately until the investigation has been completed.

On behalf of my party I should like to convey my deepest sympathy to the families of Rosaline Cloete and Michael Julies. I also wish those who have been wounded a speedy recovery.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the words of the hon member for Macassar and I want to express our condolences on behalf of the Ministers’ Council and this House to the next of kin of Rosaline Cloete, 4 years old, and Michael Julies, 13 years old, who were shot and killed in Kakamas on 13 February 1988 by the narcotics division of the Police.

Outrageous!

Order! Hon members must please give the hon the Minister an opportunity to finish.

We regret the irresponsible use of fire-arms among people who usually form part of a peaceful society. I want to give the House the assurance that I have already taken up the matter with to the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and he promised me that he would institute an urgent and penetrating investigation. I want to propose, however, that a commission of inquiry be established immediately to investigate the matter so that a full report can be made to the House.

Order! As concerns the last section of the hon the Minister’s speech, the matter still has to be discussed with the parties involved. A motion will have to be introduced to the effect that a commission of inquiry is to be appointed. I believe the UDP also wants to move a motion in this regard and I therefore want to rule that the hon the Minister and members of the UDP convene and make arrangements in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

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

Sir, we are discussing a law today that can only be described as the foundation of apartheid. This legislation was, and is, the realization of the National Party’s preoccupation with race. One finds in their propaganda and policy documents an almost pathological obsession regarding race and the purity of race. Before proceeding I believe we should once again examine the contents of this Act. The absurdities and contradictions would be almost painfully funny if they were not the cause of so much hurt, degradation, suffering and death. We find the following definitions in the Population Registration Act, No 30 of 1950. I quote from section 1:

“Black” means a person who is, or is generally accepted as, a member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa;
“coloured person” means a person who is not a white person or a Black;
“white person” means a person who—

1. (a) in appearance obviously is a white person and who is not generally accepted as a coloured person; or
2. (b) is generally accepted as a white person and is not in appearance obviously not a white person …

These then are the definitions of White, Black and Coloured, but it does not end there. The Act goes on to define how a person’s race shall be determined. Allow me to mention but a few more definitions. Subsection (2) (a) states:

I did not know that races had special characteristics regarding those matters. Let us go on to subsection (2) (b) which I consider to be an absolute jewel. I hope the hon the Minister will be able to explain it to me. I have read it a couple of times and I still cannot understand what exactly the legislators mean by it. It says:

I want to read that to hon members again.

I am not making this up and hon members can look at the Act. That is how it appears there, word for word.

Section 5 of this Act continues with the definitions. Allow me, Sir, the liberty to read some of these to you. Section 5(5) reads as follows:

1. (a) a person shall be classified as a white person if his natural parents have both been classified as white persons;
2. (b) a person shall be classified as a coloured person if his natural parents have both been classified as coloured persons or one of his natural parents has been classified as a white person and the other natural parent has been classified as a coloured person or a Black;
3. (c) a coloured person whose natural parents have both been classified as members of the same ethnic or other group, shall be classified as a member of that group;
4. (d) a person shall be classified as a Black if his natural parents have both been classified as Blacks;
5. (e) a person shall not be classified as a white person if one of his natural parents has been classified as a coloured person or a Black.

Remember, Sir, we were supposed to have had the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, and this kind of thing was not supposed to happen. I think subsection (5)(f) is ridiculous. It reads as follows:

Subsection (5)(f) once again illustrates to us the immorality of this Act. We find that when the father is classified Black, ie Indian, Coloured or African, the child is also classified as such. However, when the father is White and the mother not, then the child is what the mother is.

Sir, how many children have had to grow up without their fathers simply because of this provision? How many White fathers have escaped their responsibilities to their offspring because of this? I recall how, in the old CRC, when Mr Norman Milton was in charge of social welfare, month after month adoption forms came before him which stated that the mother of the adoptive child was White and the father unknown. The child was then obviously Coloured. How many children had to be removed forcibly from their mothers? We will never know.

Can this Act then be described in any other manner than as ungodly and immoral? It is common knowledge that we in this House refer to ourselves, when necessary, as the “so-called Coloureds”, or use our hands to denote inverted commas when using the word “Coloureds”. Obviously, when one walks on the Cape Flats and one sees a man with his hands raised in the air in a specific way, one knows that he is referring to the word “Coloured”.

Does the hon the Minister still believe that we are a “nasie-in-wording”? Can he understand why we object to the term “Coloured”? Anthropologically there exists no such ethnic tribe as a Coloured tribe. Sir, we are but a figment of the NP-Government’s imagination.

Section 5(2) of the Act reads as follows:

Sir, it is totally up to the hon the State President. He can chop and change as he wishes in order to decide what ethnic tribe or group a person should belong to. According to section 5(3)(b) the State President can not only decide by himself what category I must belong to, but he may also do so with retrospective effect—all the way back to 1950. One can find, after having lived as one kind of a person for the 38 years, that all of a sudden one is something else, with the consequential changes running all the way down the line. The State President can decide today that my grandfather’s classification was wrong, and change that. That would mean that my classification, as well as that of my father and my children, has to be changed.

What was the intention with this disgusting law? It was to keep the “European” race pure. Maybe the hon the Minister will be able to explain to us today what a pure European race is. When we go back to the original debate of 1950, when this Act was introduced, we find that the NP Member of Parliament, Mr J J Fouché—that is the same person who later became the State President of this country—said certain things which I want to quote (Hansard, 8 March 1950, columns 2544 and 2545).

I want to quote selectively from a long speech:

Sir, we find this repeated throughout the debate. He also said:

He continues, and I quote:

People seemed to be a lot more honest in those days. A member of the then opposition, a certain Col Jordan, had the following to say about the Act, and I quote from col 2539 of the same debate in 1950:

I do not know whether that appeals to the hon members opposite. And I want to go on with another quotation from the same work—

And so on. This represents the doctrine which underlies the introduction of this Bill. This doctrine was framed by a gentleman named Adolph Hitler, and the quotations are from his book, “Mein Kampf”.

Sir, the then Minister of Interior who introduced this piece of legislation at that time had the following to say about it, and I quote:

I quote further:

Could a man ever have been so misguided, Sir? He went on:

So, one wonders why they do not want to refer to their ancestors. Maybe it is because they will find that nobody is pure White in this country any longer.

Of course!

From the cradle to the grave we are governed by this Act. This Act determines where we could be born and where we will be buried. Charles Caleb Colton said in Lacon in 1825:

I, as a young person in this country, grew up knowing no White people. This Population Registration Act, as well as the Group Areas Act, made me Coloured. Until I was six years old I was a South African, a baby, a child; but then I went to a Coloured group area and I had to go to a Coloured school, a Coloured bioscope, a Coloured swimming pool—if one could call it that— and Coloured discos and dances etc. That made me Coloured. [Interjections.]

I was 24 years old when I returned from the USA after my studies and met White people of my own age for the first time on a daily basis. That was when I was working at Volkswagen. Then I found that there were very few differences between us.

As young healthy males we all tended to have the same basic interests.

This Act is the foundation on which we were separated so much that we do not know each other. We end up hating each other. Because of this separation we can find a ridiculous story in Sunday Times of 14 February 1988 under the headline, “Sorry, White blood only”:

I challenge the hon the Minister to show me what is White blood and what is Black blood. With what type of society will we face the future if we have a repetition of this? This preoccupation with race is still with us today in the Government’s policy, especially in the whole concept of own and general affairs. I shall not go into that today, however.

This is not an academic exercise. We in this House talk from experience. We who have found ourselves on the wrong side of the line, who have experienced the flip side of the wonderful White experience of luxury, privilege and power, we talk from experience. I managed to get hold of a couple of boards over the weekend, and I would like to show them to the House. The one says: “Blanke groepsgebied—reg van toegang word voorbehou”. Another one says: “Net Nieblankes—non-Whites only”.

But it is such an ugly sign.

Here is another one which says: “Net Blankes—Whites only”. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I would like to take these to the hon the Minister. I do not want him to take them; he must please give them back to me, but I want him to have a look at them.

Exhibit A.

I do not know whether the hon the Minister has ever noticed these boards, but they are part of my daily life. They govern everything I do. These boards decide whether I may swim somewhere or not. They decide whether I can get onto a bus or not; whether I can get onto a train or not. They determine whether I can use a toilet or whether I have to employ superhuman efforts until I get home to my own group area. Does the hon the Minister know what it is like to grow up with these boards governing one’s life all the time? To us these boards are worse than the Berlin wall. That wall at least prevents one from seeing what one is missing. But not these boards! All the fun, the comforts, and the luxury were there for one to see, but these boards, like a rock around a drowning man, prevented one from “trespassing”. That was forbidden ground to one.

As a pre-primary schoolboy I lived in my grandfather’s house in 17 Scanlan Street. If one should go to that address today, one would find nothing because it was demolished in 1978 in terms of the Group Areas Act, along with the church, the manse and the school. I was a four-year-old kid when my nanny used to take me to Magienies Park where they had swings, monkeys and birds. Every day the caretaker used to stop us and ask us what we came to do there. We replied that we came to look at the birds. That was okay, but the moment I got on the swings he would chase me away like a dog. As a little kid I went back day after day, only to be chased away each time. What was my sin? The colour of my skin!

Let me tell hon members more about my experience. As I said, this is not an academic exercise, it is reality to me. My dad’s brother, Paul Hendrickse, who eventually became a professor in gynaecology and obstetrics at the University of Ibadan in Nigeria and a member of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, left this country as a young man to continue his medical studies overseas. I believe in those days people of colour were not allowed to examine White cadavers. My uncle made the mistake of meeting and falling in love with an Englishwoman who in this country would have been considered White. They did the normal thing and married. However, because she was White they could not live in this country. He could come here alone, she could come alone or the kids could come on their own. This man died in Nigeria. That was the only country he felt he could serve Africa, seeing that that opportunity was denied him by his own country. I met my blood cousins in England for the first time at the age of 23. I also met my uncle. He had so much to offer, but he could not share it with South Africa because of this law. That is not all that this law has done to me and millions of others like me.

My grandfather was one of four children, two boys and two girls, but I did not always know that. I only knew of the two grand-aunts and my grandfather. Then, in 1972, when I was a thirteen-year-old boy, my grandfather was dying. My father had to call his blood uncle and say: “Hello, is that Mr Hendrickse? This is Allan Hendrickse, your brother’s son. I am calling to let you know that your brother is dying.” I was 13 years old when I met my granduncle for the first time. It was the first and also the last time. Why was that? It was because he had been classified White! To this day I do not know how many kids he had. Somewhere in Durban I have White aunts and uncles of whom I know absolutely nothing.

One could go on and on with stories like this. Family of mine married into a family of two boys and one girl. Their classification, despite their having the same parents, were Coloured, White and Chinese. This is but a part of what that Act means to me. Allow me, Sir, to read a poem by Langston Hughes from “In love with Haarlem” Freedom Ways, Summer 1963:

I want to ask the hon the Minister please to stop and listen next time his hon colleagues say we must be patient. He should remember what he hears here today and realise that we cannot be patient for ever. The hon the Minister will have heard what we had to say when he leaves here today. Because I respect him, I am sure he will have listened to us.

Gone are the days, Sir, when we could say—in the words of Victor Hugo—“He does not weep who does not see.” Despite the state of emergency, South Africa has become too small to say, “I did not know.”

James Baldwin is correct when he says, “People who shut their eyes to reality, simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.” This quotation comes from “Stranger in the Village” which was published in 1963.

For too long we have allowed such a law to divide brother from brother, daughter from mother, friend from friend. Hon members may remember the story in regard to the “venstermense”; the ones who used to play White because of the benefits of being White. When those people saw their own blood walking down the street, they used to turn around and look at the window so as to be saved the embarrassment of having to greet their family members.

Sir, there can be no place in this beautiful country of ours for racists and bigots. Unfortunately we find that even today in some of our churches people preach and pray only for those of the same skin colour. This is not what we need! The hon the Minister is an Afrikaner; he knows that and I know that. Yet he does not have one single law in this country which says so. Why then does he need a law to say he is White? Let us move beyond such paltry considerations and enter into a tomorrow of South Africanism of which all of us and our children will be proud.

In conclusion, Sir, allow me to quote Pearl S Buck, from her 1943 work, What America means to me. I have substituted “America” in the text with “South Africa”. I quote:

Sir, the time has come for us to get rid of this law so that we can be South Africans—first, foremost and only.

Mr Chairman, I should like the hon member for Addo to consider the amendment. I move as follows:

*Years ago I read these words written by a Black man. He said: “When I was born, I was black; when I am cold, I am black; when I am ill, I am black; when I am warm, I am black, and when I die, I am black. But you, when you are born, are pink; when you are cold, you are blue; when you are ill, you are grey; when you are hot you are red; when you die, you are purple; yet you have the audacity to tell me I am Coloured!”

†Sir, if one were to look at what is left of the Population Registration Act, one would see that this Act has been amended no less than 15 times, that section 1, the definition section, has been amended and that 11 different definitions have been deleted. If one were to look at the entire Act, one would see that section 2 has been repealed by Act 72 of 1986; section 3 has been repealed by the same Act; section 4 has been repealed; section 6 has been repealed; section 7 has been repealed; section 8 has been repealed by Act 29 of 1970; section 9 has been repealed by Act 72 of 1986; section 10 has been repealed by Act 72 of 1986; section 12 has been repealed by the same Act; section 13 has been repealed; section 14 has been repealed; section 15 has been repealed; section 15A has been repealed; section 16 has been repealed; section 17 has been repealed. We find in section 18 that paragraphs (b) to (d) have been repealed by Act 72 of 1986; paragraph (e) has been repealed; paragraphs (h) and (f) have been repealed; and paragraphs (g), (h), (i) and (j) have been repealed. What is left of this Act? We are left with section 19 which relates to evidence and presumptions which could comfortably be accommodated in the law of evidence. We are left with section 20 which governs regulations. Section 23 still refers to “both Houses of Parliament”, although we have been around for more than four years. Likewise, section 24 also refers to “both Houses of Parliament”. Section 21, too, has been repealed by Act 72 of 1986.

*Therefore, what we are left with here is a very clumsy and outdated piece of legislation. If this is the cornerstone of apartheid, and when we look at how many times this Act has been amended, we have no doubt that we can no longer rely on this imperfect piece of legislation. The entire Act, as it stands, should be repealed. All that remains in this Act, is certain definitions—a definition, for example, of what “Black” entails.

†“‘Black’ means a person who is or who is generally accepted as a member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa.” The “board” is the board referred to in section 11. Everything else on page 73, issue No 20, of the Butterworth edition of the Act, has been deleted by the Identification Act, No 72 of 1986. Why, then, is it necessary to retain this Act which is the cornerstone of apartheid? Mr Chairman, apartheid cannot be reformed. Let us get that clear once and for all. One cannot reform that which cannot be reformed. The whole system of apartheid must be abolished, and this is the cornerstone of apartheid. It is with the repeal of this Act that we should begin to abolish apartheid.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he really needs this law to protect his identity. If he can answer me as to why he needs a law to protect his identity, perhaps I will be able to understand his thinking. I do not need any law to protect my identity. Now I should like to know from the hon the Minister why he needs a law to protect his identity.

Some hon members will recall that the group “Coloured” was defined some time back as being “Coloured”, “other Coloured”, “Cape Coloured”, “Rehoboth Baster”, “Nama”, “Griqua” and “Malay”—seven different subclassifications of a Coloured person. As I stand here today I cannot identify anyone in terms of those seven different subclassifications.

We have had the case of a person born in the Orange Free State whose mother was reputed to have been Griqua, whose father was reputed to have been Sotho, but who lived in the Cape and was classified Cape Coloured. The hon member for Addo has given examples, taken from life, of how this law really affected us. Allow me to cite one example. We were on our way by car from East London to Cape Town, and we stopped at Humansdorp. I went into a café to buy a packet of cigarettes and the attendant told me in no uncertain terms that Coloureds were not served in that particular café. I then sent my wife and two sons into the café with the instruction that they buy some mineral water and have it poured into glasses—which was duly done. I also told her to lift the empty glass as soon as she had finished the drink—which she duly did. When I re-entered the café, the woman attendant turned around and shouted at me to “get the hell out” of her café. I then told her that it would appear that she did not even know her own people, because she had just served my wife and our two children—who were drinking out of her glasses to boot! How can South Africans defend such an incident overseas? That woman did not even know her own people. Moreover, there are many people who were obviously Coloured—I can mention their names—but who, as a result of their crossing the colour line, have been accepted as White in terms of this definition. We do not need stupid laws like this one, Sir. This is one law that we can, in all sincerity, call a stupid law. We are all South Africans, and if the Government wants to bring about peace in this country it should classify us all as South Africans, and that is the end of it. As long as this law is retained, there will be strife in this country.

Sometimes, when I go through this Population Registration Act, I recall how, when we referred to it as the “Race Classification Act”, the hon the Minister and some of his hon colleagues made much capital out of the fact that there is no “Race Classification Act”. We, on the other hand, refer to this particular piece of legislation as the “Race Classification Act”.

The Act does not make mention of Indians. So, in terms of the Population Registration Act, we do not have Indians in South Africa, because the Act confines itself to “White persons”, “Coloured persons” and “Black persons”. As the hon member for Addo has already pointed out, the definition of a Coloured person is an absolute mockery. It is no wonder Pieter-Dirk Uys can write such a juicy story about it every year. There are so many people who have been reclassified from Coloured to White, from White to Indian, and so on. It makes an absolute mockery of South Africa.

If we are to bring about reform in this country— this is not a threat, Mr Chairman, but a plain statement—this Act will have to go. There are people outside this Chamber today who believe that, because the Government did not want to listen to them, they have to resort to violence to “shoot open”—as they term it—the ears of the Government.

Here we are standing today and we are talking directly to a member of the Government. We want to open the Government’s ears by dialogue, because we do not believe in shooting open ears as some people on the outside do. I can understand why those people have resorted to violence and why they want to shoot open the Government’s ears. It is because the Government does not want to listen.

I ask the hon the Minister: Of what benefit is this Act to South Africa? I want the hon the Minister to answer that question today. Is it not time that we concentrated on building a South African nation first instead of trying to have one group at the top in all cases? Let us start building a South African nation that we can all be proud of; and let us repeal this Act. If the Government wants to retain this Act, I want to tell the hon the Minister in no uncertain terms that we will always have strife in this country until such time as this useless Act is removed from our Statute Book. It has been repealed to such an extent that it is on the verge of collapse. Now is the appropriate time to allow this Act to collapse, because what is portrayed in the Population Registration Act, No 30 of 1950, is nothing but sheer and naked racism. I want to assure the hon the Minister that if he gets up here today and defends pure and simple racism in this House, he will be in for trouble. If, however, he gives us the undertaking that this Act will be repealed, he will have the support of the entire House.

The hon member for Addo raised many issues, but if we adopt his motion which reads—

we will still be left with certain useless subsections. Some subsections do not refer to the classification which the hon member mentions in his motion. Section 19, for instance, deals with evidence and presumptions and the Identification Act. In subsection (1D) reference is made to reference books. There are various useless subsections which will remain on the Statute Book if we repeal only the sections which the hon member has moved we repeal. I therefore suggest in all sincerity, that the entire Act be repealed and not only sections 5, 11, 19 and the penal clauses attached in terms of section 21A and the regulations in terms of section 20.

What we in this House have to advocate is the complete repeal of this entire Act. The mere fact that this Act has been amended on no less than 15 occasions shows that the initial Act was basically wrong. Having progressed 38 years from 1950 to 1988, we can understand the NP’s need to have promulgated this Act in 1950, because they only came to power in 1948. That is why they insisted on having this legislation—they had to entrench their position! They are entrenched in South Africa today, except that they are being given the biggest scare of their lives by the CP. They do not need this Act to protect their identity, therefore. In any case, he who seeks to protect his identity will be destroyed in the protection of that identity. I want to make that quite clear. Each system contains its own seeds of destruction, and the seeds of destruction in the NP are contained in Acts such as the Population Registration Act. When other people come to power—and I sincerely believe that that is going to happen—they need only retain the laws the NP wrote to rule this country. That happened in Zimbabwe where many of the existing laws which Ian Smith passed have been retained and are still being used today.

*I can assure the hon the Minister that if we come to power in this country and this Act is still on the Statute Book, we shall ensure that the Whites come off second best. That is exactly what this Act does. This Act places us at a disadvantage, and I can assure the hon the Minister that if we come to power one day and this Act is still in force, we shall enforce it.

†I support the motion that this Act must be repealed in toto. I want to ask the hon the Minister sincerely to reconsider, and to accept the amendment that the entire Act be repealed.

Mr Chairman, there is a single experience which springs to mind when the term “race classification” is mentioned, and that is the pencil test. The pencil test required people of colour to go to certain offices of the relevant department so that an official—usually of dubious intelligence—in one of the offices could run a sharpened pencil through their hair. If the pencil did not go through one’s hair, Sir, one was classified “anything other than White”; if it did, one was subjected to other indignities.

There is another test, however, which is to my mind an important and valid one. It is called the four-way test and we can judge thereby the things we think, say and do. The four-way test asks of us, firstly, if something is the truth; secondly, if it is fair; thirdly, if it will build goodwill and better friendships; and, fourthly, if it will be beneficial to all concerned. Race classification, and the evil system of apartheid upon which it is based, does not satisfy the four-way test; in fact, quite the opposite is true.

Apartheid has caused polarization between Whites and South Africans of colour. In its application it is dehumanising and oppressive, creating second- and third-class citizens. It has built—and goes on building—hatred and envy. Apartheid and race classification mitigate against reconciliation—reconciliation which South Africa needs so desperately at this point in time. What is most important, however, is that apartheid and race classification have benefited White South Africans at the expense of people of colour. Hence one finds the polarization that exists in contemporary South African society.

We cannot help but ask the hon the Minister whom the ruling party consulted with when they decided to implement this Act. Whom did they consult when the decision was made to call me, and people of mixed parentage like myself, Coloured? They certainly did not consult my father or his father or any of my forefathers. In truth, Sir, it was a decision born of “kragdadigheid” and “baasskap” and, as always, it was simply imposed upon the majority of South Africans and on the people who were affected by it most— against their will.

It is true that apartheid has benefited White South Africans. Today White South Africans can stand up, shrug their shoulders and plead ignorance. They say they cannot understand why we carry on the way we do. They have not experienced what we have experienced. Sir, what do I say to a young man from Mitchell’s Plain who originally lived in the Walmer Estate/Woodstock area? In fact, three to four generations of his family lived there, and their property was passed down from one generation to the next. The father of that young man was forced to accept the pittance of R2 000 when the Group Areas Act was applied. He either had to accept that pittance or have his property expropriated. Today that same property is worth in excess of R100 000. That young man’s heritage, and that of his family, was taken away from him. What does one say to him, Sir?

Will the total repeal of all apartheid laws satisfy him? The answer is no, and therein lies the key to why people take up arms and engage in the armed struggle.

If the group concept and the protection of minorities is so important and imperative to the NP, why do we not have a Jewish group, a Portuguese group, a French group, a Greek group, an Italian group, an English-speaking group and an Afrikaner group? These after all, are distinct minorities. In terms of present-day NP policies, these are definite groups that have their own cultures and have been in existence since time immemorial, and that exist in South Africa today. Instead, they form part of an overall White group.

When this Act was placed on the Statute Book— we heard what the hon member for Addo and the hon member for Border said—the NP in its infinite wisdom decided to cut up the so-called Coloured group further into seven other groups. My question to the hon the Minister as to the Jewish group, the French group, the Greek group and the Italian group is therefore a relevant one.

The question of culture has often been used as an argument against the concept of South Africanism and a single nation. We believe that this whole question of culture is being used to further control us politically, divide families and communities and rule all South Africans. It is important to note that the concept and principle of freedom of choice must be paramount. We in the LP believe that the right of the individual is supreme and that the State exists to serve the individual, as opposed to its serving a particular group or race.

It is also important that the group concept or the politics of racism, to give it a truer term, be expunged from the South African political situation, as well as the Constitution. A new concept which we believe will be a dynamic one and that of South Africanism must be promoted. However, this demands that all South Africans— regardless of race—be regarded first and foremost as South Africans.

Much has happened in the recent past, as it always does during the holiday period. I refer in particular to certain sporting events that took place in South Africa. When these events take place, we proudly proclaim: Look at the sports boycott; it amounts to nothing! We must be very careful, however, and we must think before we undertake certain actions. There is what is called in South Africa the Boardsailing Association of South Africa. They undertook to hold championships here in the Cape at Bloubergstrand, at Gordon’s Bay and at the Strand, amongst other places.

Heunis’s beach!

On television during that time we were inundated with the coverage of this championship. It set me thinking, because I could not help remarking to myself that Bloubergstrand, Gordon’s Bay and the Strand are all three municipalities that are still practising apartheid at its worst. People of colour are not allowed to use their beaches. Here we were proudly proclaiming that we were hosting an international sporting event!

With this in mind, I decided to write to the organisers and sponsors of this sporting event. I should like to share this with hon members of the House.

My first letter was to Mr Tony Blackwell, the chairman of the Boardsailing Association of South Africa. I quote from my letter:

Mr Chairman, I sent a similar letter to the chairman or secretary of the Western Province Boardsailing Club, and I also sent letters to the sponsors. I will read a copy of the letter which I referred to the Managing Director of First National Bank:

Mr Tony Blackwell has as yet not replied to me personally. He saw fit to reply to me through the Press. However, I did receive replies. First of all there was a reply from Mr Terry Weiner. I quote from his letter:

[Interjections.] It is Dias all over again!

I think that when South Africans can engage in dialogue of this nature, we can only say that there is hope for this country of ours.

Let me go on. It is common knowledge that Mr Chris Ball of what is now First National Bank went to Lusaka to speak to the ANC. While a great deal of controversy raged about that particular issue, I believe that that gentleman conducted that trip in good faith and in the interests of peace and goodwill in this country. I now want to quote from a letter from First National Bank:

That, Sir, was that individual’s reply. So now we know exactly where First National Bank stands with regard to apartheid.

First Apartheid Bank!

The last letter I received was from Gilbey’s who also sponsored one of these championships. I should like to quote from it:

Mr Chairman, when it comes to vested interests, all talk of principles is forgotten and this is clearly demonstrated in the replies that I received recently.

I want to refer to the incidents that took place in Natal. It is common knowledge that I was born in Natal, not far from Umtwalumi Beach. I have said before that my forefathers walked along those beaches freely. Indeed, it has always been a tradition for members of my family to attend the Umtwalumi Primary School. This they have always done. When someone who is known to me came back to this country, he decided to take his family and show them the beach where, as a little boy, he used to play freely. He and his family were met by a constable at the entrance to the beach who told them that people of colour were not allowed to use that particular beach.

I must go back in time a little bit. When this gentleman and his family came to South Africa, I invited them to spend some time with me in Cape Town. As always, the topic of conversation moved to politics. Like a true South African I defended this country. Professor Blankenberg is a Canadian today. His children and his wife are Canadians. I defended South Africa against all criticism. Not three weeks later Professor Blankenberg saw for himself precisely the effects of apartheid. How then can I go back to him and say that things are changing here? How does our embassy in Canada defend our country when Professor Blanckenberg stands up in that country and says apartheid is alive and well in South Africa? [Interjections.]

S A Forum and the Bureau for Information regularly bring guests and visitors from overseas to speak to Ministers and Deputy Ministers. We are expected to ask them to give us a chance; but how do I react in the light of this incident? How do I react when a Randall Robinson and someone of his ilk comes to South Africa and says to me: “I want to speak to you and I dispute your contention that change is taking place in South Africa”? I would like the hon the Minister to give me some indication of how I am supposed to react now and in the future.

In the light of the incident at Umtwalumi I went to my attorney for legal advice. I did this because I felt very strongly about it. I asked him to investigate the possibility of bringing legal action against this man, Mr Jan Ellis, a self-styled and self-proclaimed mayor.

This, however, is where the great irony lies, Mr Chairman. My attorney said to me that a group, in terms of the NP policy of “group”, could not bring a legal action against an individual. It was only an individual, he said, that could bring a legal action against another individual. When my attorney told me this, I nearly fell on my back. I found that strange, because our entire society and our lifestyle is based on the group concept. He said to me: “Well, that is as things stand”.

Eventually my attorney said to me that we could ask the Attorney-General of Natal to investigate criminal charges against Mr Ellis in the light of his actions and in the light of his statements regarding Aids. You see, Sir, one of his reasons for preventing people of colour from using the beach and the toilet facilities was that, as he put it, he was afraid that they, in that little White community of theirs, would contract Aids. [Interjections] It is not a nice thing to say, Mr Chairman, but I sincerely hope that no person of colour uses that toilet, because when someone in that community does contract Aids, I should like to hear how Mr Ellis justifies it. You see, Sir, Aids knows no boundaries and no colour. It does not have boards saying “Whites only” or “Coloureds only”. [Interjections.]

There were several reasons why I decided to take this particular step. Mr Jan Ellis, Sir, is too much of a bigot and a racist to realise that what we are dealing with here is a principle. In terms of that principle this was a God-given amenity. It was not created by the Whites; it was always there. [Interjections.] For Mr Ellis to say that he did not know that Prof Blankenberg was a “Professor” merely added insult to injury. One wonders where Mr Ellis originated from. He is certainly not a Natalian. If people like Mr Ellis were to go into the history of that particular part of Natal, they will find that Prof Blankenberg, the Fynns, the Redmans, the Landers’s, the Goldstones and the Ogles have very deep roots in that part of Natal. Yet Jan Ellis can stand up today and say I may not use Umtwalumi Beach, and speak in derogatory terms in doing so!

Next to the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the race classification provisions which exist in this particular law are probably the most hurtful pieces of legislation on the Statute Book. The only solution would be the total scrapping of these abhorrent laws.

Mr Chairman, if ever a law has been based on colour, this law has. The reasons for this law were, firstly, to bring about racial separation, to separate people who were living together peacefully.

Secondly this legislation was introduced to bring about the “purity” of Whites.

Thirdly the legislation was introduced to determine who, depending on their colour, might enjoy certain facilities and privileges. Numerous other measures could not have been implemented without this legislation. That means that one could have lived where one wanted to and gone to school where one wanted to, because being Coloured would not have been an issue. This legislation places people in severely restrictive compartments. It has also caused people to cross the colour bar, because only as Whites could they find a better livelihood. Between 1982 and 1986, 1 747 Coloureds had themselves declared White. Over the past few years we have been told that our population consists of roughly 2,5 million Coloureds, but what has become of the other people?

People apply to be declared White for reasons of employment. I still remember that years ago advertisements for employment referred to “slightly Coloureds” and “off-Whites”. When one walked into the chain stores, one could easily recognise the so-called “off-Whites” and “slightly Coloureds” because they were powdered in order to look more like Whites. This caused families to be split up and today one has the White Bothas and the Black Bothas, the Coloured Wicombs and the White Wicombs, the White Jansens and the Coloured Jansens, the Coloured Hollanders and the White Hollanders. It caused families to split up. The major problem today is that it is extremely inconvenient to be a Coloured. A label is hung round one’s neck, a label which prohibits one from enjoying certain privileges in one’s native country. What hurts most is that one is born a human being, but that the legislature of this country makes one a Coloured.

The fact that they make Coloureds out of us implies that as a Coloured, one is not one of the chosen in this country. It also implies that one will not enjoy the best this country has to offer and that one will be considered a second-hand citizen. In addition it implies that as a Coloured one will be subordinate to the Portuguese and the Greeks in this country. Certain privileges are not, however, accorded to those born in this country. But if a foreigner disembarks from a ship or an aeroplane he is in paradise. White foreigners are accorded these privileges.

I now tell the Government that if they discriminate against me because I am dirty, surely I can go and wash myself! If the Government discriminates against me because I am shoddy and in tatters, I can go and patch and darn myself; I can go and fix myself up. The fact that the Government discriminates against me because my skin is not white, however, is truly a sin before God, Sir. That is one of the things which hurt us. It is a disgrace that one is treated in this way in one’s native land.

Why is the legislature so obsessed with this Act? Is it perhaps because those in the governing party are in search of an identity of their own? Is that why they have come up with this Act? This Act controls the lives of the so-called Coloureds from the cradle to the grave.

That is why certain people can say: “You must keep the Coloureds in their place.” I have always asked where this place is where the Coloureds have to be kept. Sir, this is said because the Government has already specified where the Coloureds must be kept. I am being told, therefore, even though I was born as a human being, that I have been made a Coloured. I am being told that I must attend a Coloured school, live in a Coloured area, and lastly, that I have to be buried in a Coloured cemetery.

Sir, why must our people be placed in compartments in this way?

I want to quote from the Act where it says—

What it amounts to is that a Coloured person can only beget a Coloured child, while a White person can beget a White child or a Coloured child from a Coloured person. That is how superior they are. The hon the Minister was probably not present when this legislation was promulgated, but in his capacity as Minister he has to implement it. I therefore ask him to do away with this Act. Can we not simply all be South Africans living together? Why do we have to compartmentalise people?

Mr Chairman, there are no hard and fast rules in classifying any race. In 1981 a Johannesburg magistrate convicted a woman for living in a so-called White area. The magistrate said she had a flat nose, wavy hair, a pale skin and high cheekbones. On the basis of those criteria she was reclassified Coloured. The conviction was set aside by the Supreme Court in Cape Town. The judge ruled that while the woman was not facially White, she was generally accepted as White.

People cannot physically change race, but that is possible in the eyes of this racial, repugnant and ungodly law. In July 1983, for example, an abandoned baby, Lisa Venter, was found near Pretoria by nursing staff. To classify her race, they had to test a strand of her hair, as was demanded by the Registration Board. This strand of hair was examined by the Pretoria police laboratory. She was then found to be Coloured. Fingernails have been examined and combs have been pulled through people’s hair. If the comb was halted by tight curls, the person was likely to be classified as Coloured or as “anything other than White”. This information appeared in the Rand Daily Mail on 27 July 1983.

People cannot physically change race, as I have said, but thousands of people have been affected in this way by the Population Registration Act. In 1984 the then Minister of Home Affairs told Parliament that 795 South Africans were reclassified. These included 518 former Coloureds who became White. Sir, if those Coloureds were reclassified as Whites, what are their children? Are they other Whites? Are they “White by night” or just White? Are they “window-shopping Whites”? By that I mean that when one passes them in the street, they look the other way. They look at the windows! That is why we call them “window-shopping Whites”, or as they say in Afrikaans, “vensterblankes”. There were two Whites who became Chinese! I do not know how one can take a Mongoloid group and turn them into a Caucasoid group. There was one White who became Chinese. There was one White who became an Indian. There were 89 Africans who became Coloured, and five Coloureds who became African. That was printed in The Cape Times of 8 February 1985.

Here in this House we have a pure Egyptian who is now a Coloured, married to an Indian. [Interjections.] Then there were 89 Africans who became Coloured and five Coloureds who became African. In 1983 a total of 690 people changed race; two-thirds were Coloureds who became White; 71 were Africans who became Coloured; and 11 were Whites who were classified to other groups. This is according to The Argus of 9 February 1985. I wonder if these Coloureds who became White did not do so in order to have more voting power to bring in the NP Government again.

In the year July 1981 to June 1982 a total of 997 people changed race. Among them were one Indian who became White; four Cape Coloureds who became Chinese; 15 Whites who became Chinese; three Asians who became Cape Coloured; and three Africans who became Griqua. In 1984 a Government commission studying the courts found that two pre-school children were held in detention for three years while they awaited a Government decision on their race. This appeared in the Afrikaans press on 6 April 1984.

In 1960 Sandra Laing, born of White parents in the Eastern Transvaal, was asked to leave her White school at the age of 11 because she looked like a Coloured. She was reclassified Coloured, but after a long legal battle the decision was reversed. She then lived with a Black man and applied to be reclassified so that the relationship could be legalised. This is according to the Rand Daily Mail of 23 March 1984.

According to evidence given to a parliamentary select committee investigating the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act in 1984, there is no pure White race. There are hundreds of cases of families being split by race classification. Branches of some families have been classified White while others have been classified Coloured. I, for instance, have been classified Cape Malay, two of my brothers are Coloureds, one is White, two of my sisters are Coloureds and one is Indian. All in one family!

Dark-skinned children of Coloureds trying to pass as Whites sometimes have to be abandoned or sent to relatives of a deeper hue. Darker children of White parents, as in the Sandra Laing case, also cause problems.

When a Coloured or Black woman—she being the nanny—takes White children and their dog to the Whites only beach, she is allowed to go into the sea with those children, as long as she looks after them and sees to their safety. However, as soon as the children go away from there, she will be convicted because she is now on a White beach.

In 1984, for example, a White father was reclassified Coloured—the fifth time he had crossed the racial barrier. His Indian wife also changed and was reclassified Coloured. The change meant that the couple, Vic and Farina Wilkinson, was originally classified mixed, then European, then Coloured, then White and finally Coloured. This was reported in the Sunday Times of 4 November 1984.

Dr E D du Toit, senior lecturer at the University of Cape Town’s Department of Human Genetics, said there was a considerable admixture of so-called South African genes, mostly Khoisan— that is Hottentot and Bushman—as well as Negro and Asiatic. White South Africans in general had more than 7% mixed blood. I want to repeat that. According to this Professor, White South Africans had more than 7% mixed blood. This was reported in The Argus of 27 August 1984.

A major row broke out in 1985 over the claim made by the academic, Dr Hans Heese, in his book Groep sonder Grense that the forebears of many leading Afrikaner families had married or had had relationships with Asian slaves. At least 18 MPs in the Whites only House of Assembly have surnames indicating a racially mixed genealogy. This appeared in the Guardian of 5 March 1985.

In the ensuing row about the book Prof Chris Barnard challenged the leader of the far right CP, Dr A Treurnicht, to verify his claim to pure White ancestry by submitting to a medical test. Sixteen people said they would sue the Sunday Times, which gave extensive coverage to Dr Heese’s findings, for R320 000 unless the paper undertook not to quote from the book again. They said they had been embarrassed and humiliated by the suggestion that they “might be descended from people of colour”. I found that information in an Afrikaans newspaper of 10 March 1985 and the Sunday Times of 3 March 1985. I quote from that Sunday Times:

That was an example of councillors punching one another because one alleged that the other had mixed blood. I quote further:

He quoted T R H Davenport’s South Africa—A Modern History, page 5.

I now want to quote from page 72 of Eric Walkens book, A History of South Africa:

I should like to end by quoting Adam Small who said on 13 August 1984:

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the motion as tabled by the hon member for Addo.

The Population Registration Act is like an octopus with many tentacles. On each tentacle one finds many Acts such as the Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act, the Group Areas Act etc.

Let me go back in history to the year 1948. At that time the Coloureds were still on the common voters’ roll and could elect White representatives to represent them in Parliament. However, in the Western Cape we had a boycott call from the intellectuals such as Benny Kies, Willem Van Schoor, Benny Petersen and Ali Fatar, who were all stalwarts of the Non-European Unity Movement. Many of the so-called Coloureds did not exercise their right to vote in the general election of 1948. It was to be their last chance to bring out their vote. It is common knowledge that the NP won the election and that that was the end of the reign of Field Marshall J C Smuts and the United Party.

The NP Government realised immediately that the Coloureds would be a stumbling block at the next general election, so a plan had to be devised. I want to refer to the debates of the House of Assembly on 8 March 1950. I quote from col 2520 where the Minister of the Interior, Dr T E Dönges stated inter alia:

The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Developments mentioned the pencil operation which was commonly applied throughout the country. There was no opportunity to appeal against that because in the Bill itself it was stated that:

Sir, I now wish to quote further from the House of Assembly Hansard of 8 March 1950, column 2525, as follows:

Was that Malan?

That was D F Malan. He said that in Paarl. I quote further:

†You see, Sir, it is stated here that the NP believed that racial segregation and maintenance of racial purity should be recognised and encouraged by legislation. We also know that Adolf Hitler shared the very same thoughts, namely to retain racial purity. This proved to be a futile exercise because he brought hatred, hardship and death to six million Jews and that brought Adolf Hitler to the sudden end of his short-lived dictatorship. [Interjections.]

Sir, it has been said here this afternoon and I want to reiterate that this is one of the cruellest and most vicious pieces of legislation that still remains on the Statute Book.

I want to quote from the Sunday Times of 24 January 1988. The quotation is headed:

How does one explain this to people who are in the same category as far as “whiteness” is concerned? The article reads:

That is correct, Mr Chairman, but after having been classified one has little hope of becoming reclassified since few people have the means to appeal against their classification. That, therefore, is a waste of time.

I should like to read another quotation, this time from the Sunday Times of 21 February 1988. The article I want to quote from is headed:

That, Mr Chairman, is a reaction from the CP’s people. I quote from the article:

That is but great expectations, Sir, for I do not think he will ever attempt to do that. I quote further:

Let me read further, however:

Mr Chairman, this is a very lengthy article, but it again proves one thing. Alongside this article we have a photograph of a Black youngster sitting next to a little White girl. I mean, what can happen? The skin of the little Black boy will not rub off against the skin of the little White girl or vice versa, so it is quite pitiful that the CP can carry on about this the way they do. They try to deride our people from time to time.

There is something I should like to state very clearly this afternoon.

The day has dawned for the Government to think seriously of restoring our right to a common voters’ roll. There need be no fear then, on the part of the hon the State President and all those below him to look over their shoulders in search of CPs or members of the AWB. The restoration of the so-called Coloureds to the common voters’ roll is a serious matter and cognizance must be taken of this problem.

I want to refer to certain debates in the House of Assembly in 1950 and I quote (Hansard: Assembly, vol 71, col 2777):

I now want to quote from col 3102, from a statement made by Dr Loock during the same debate (Hansard: Assembly, vol 71, col 3102):

He was referring to the United Party here.

Sir, I also refer to column 3112 where a certain Mr Kahn said, and I quote (Hansard: Assembly, vol 71, col 3112):

Those are the quotes I wanted to refer to to illustrate why the Population Registration Act must be repealed if we are to bring about a better South Africa.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to apologise to the hon member for Durban Suburbs for a mistake I made in the previous debate. I said that on 1 and 2 February this year he was present at meetings of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid, and that he had supported the Borders of Particular States Extension Amendment Bill. That seems to have been a mistake. I discussed it with the committee clerk and should like to apologise to the hon member in this regard. [Interjections.] It would appear that hon members of the Official Opposition were still on holiday at the time. [Interjections.]

To start with I want to quote a section from the Population Registration Act that deals with definitions. I sent an English copy of this to the hon Minister. Section 1 of Act No 30 of 1950, reads as follows:

1. (a) in appearance obviously is a white person and who is not generally accepted as a coloured person; or
2. (b) is generally accepted as a white person and is not in appearance obviously not a white person, but does not include any person who for the purposes of this classification under this Act, freely and voluntarily admits that he is by descent a Black or a coloured person unless it is proved that the admission is not based on fact.

Sir, today I want to prove to the hon the Minister that a specific person, a member of the House of Assembly, is not a White person on the basis of his own definition or that of accepted definitions in the Act. Subsequently I want the hon Minister to ensure that the Act be abolished in order to save this person embarrassment. Should the hon the Minister refuse to do so, I should like him to instruct his Director-General to have this hon member declared Coloured.

To begin with I want to say that I fully support the motion in respect of the abolition of the Act. There is no civilised word with which one can describe the effect of this Act on our South African society.

Two leaders of right-wing South African political parties have on occasion tried to deny the fact that there are Afrikaners who have Coloured blood in their veins. According to Die Burger of Thursday, 25 April 1985, Mr Jaap Marais, leader of the HNP said:

In his book Credo van die Afrikaner, Dr Andries Treurnicht writes:

If one takes a look at the 1981 edition of De Villiers and Pama’s genealogical register of old Cape families—it is available in the Parliamentary Library—it appears that the Treurnichts had two founding fathers in South Africa. The first progenitor of the Treurnichts was Hendrik Treurnicht from Hertoginbosch in the Netherlands, who married Catharina van Koningshofen, the daughter of a female slave, Jannetjie Bort, in 1708. This Jannetjie Bort was a female slave in the slave quarters here next to Parliament—that white building with the green window-frames which today houses the Cultural History Museum. She worked in the kitchen of Simon van der Stel, also a Coloured.

This information can be found in Resolusies van die Politieke Raad, Part III, pp 127-128, published in Cape Town in 1969.

The first ancestor of the Treurnichts—that is Jannetjie Bort’s husband—was a Mr Dirk von Koningshoven. His shame is further revealed by the fact that the Politieke Raad convened especially with all its members on 1 July 1686 to discuss his breach of promise in respect of Jannetjie Bort, the slave woman. Von Koningshoven was then told to marry Jannetjie Bort, because he had had children by her after promising to marry her. He refused initially and was ordered by the Politieke Raad to pay maintenance. On 22 September 1686, however, he married Jannetjie Bort—probably after having discovered that he could no longer afford the maintenance! This information comes from South African archive documents of the Cape, No 111 of 1961, and Resolusies van die Politieke Raad, Part III, pp 137-138, 1960 and 1966, as well as the Geslagregisters van ou Kaapse Families by De Villiers and Pama, 1981, p 417. Sir, the abovementioned work was published for the first time in 1961 and 1966 respectively—14 and nine years before the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s Credo van ’n Afrikaner appeared.

The second ancestor of the Treurnichts, a Mr Johannes Gerhardus Treurnicht, came from East Friesland and was married to Dorothea van der Schyff, a great-granddaughter of Maria Hansen, the latter being a slave woman at the Cape who was baptised in 1685. This second ancestor of the Treurnichts, Johannes Gerhardus Treurnicht, also had an illegitimate son, who was baptised Jan Frederich Treurnicht in the Tulbagh district in 1779, by an unknown Khoi or Hottentot woman.

Oh, but they like Coloureds, don’t they!

My source in this regard is Groep sonder Grense, 1985 edition, p 69. The writer was Dr H F Heese.

Here we have these two definitions of a White person. I once challenged the hon the Leader of the CP—who is now the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I took his own genealogical register and compared it to his own definition. I then came to the conclusion that, based on his own definition, he was a Coloured. I asked him to refute my facts. I said I was prepared to acknowledge that I was wrong as I have done here earlier today. I said that if he could not prove me wrong he should agree to being classified Coloured.

The only criterion according to which people can be classified as having a degree of mixed blood is found in the state of Louisiana in the south of America. According to the laws of that state a person is considered Coloured if he has more than one thirty-second Negro blood in his veins. That is the only criterion that has ever been used and in terms of this definition, Dr Heese proves in Groep sonder Grense, the 1985 edition, that the Cape leader of the CP, Mr Jan Hoon is a Coloured.

What about the Bothas?

Sir, if my statements are true, my question to the hon the Minister is: How can the Leader of the Official Opposition be classified White? After all, he is a Coloured according to his own definition. One could almost say with ironic pride that one of our own people—thanks to a classification error on the part of the Government—is not only the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the White House of Assembly, but also that he is aspiring to becoming State President! [Interjections.]

In reaction to my letter in 1985, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made three points that I should like to quote. He said that my information did not concur with Dr Hans Heese’s research. He made a mistake, however, because he cannot doubt my points. I gave him page references. I indicated them. The information is freely available in the Parliamentary Library as well as the library here next to Parliament. He said my information did not concur with that of Dr Heese, not knowing that I am one of Dr Heese’s former students. I researched this under his supervision. What is more, it had his wholehearted support.

Secondly, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that if I were to reject him because he was a Coloured, I would be rejecting myself as well. He is missing the entire point. I do not reject him as a person or a human being. I reject his unfounded, racist political standpoints with regard to other people in this country.

Thirdly, he said that because of my statements, I have been repudiated by my own people. It is probably his Coloured family who repudiate me, because those who supposedly repudiated me have, for the purposes of the argument, remained anonymous up to the present.

The point, therefore, is that the Population Registration Act is absolutely fallible insofar as it tries to divide South Africans into racial groups. That is why Dr Treurnicht cannot, two-and-a-half years after I made my speech in Parliament, refute my statement, and, in terms of his own definition, he is a Coloured. I want to tell the hon the Minister that if he were to refuse to abolish the Act, he should order the Director-General of Home Affairs to make a reclassification in terms of this Act.

If there is one group of people in the whole world who can never be sure about their identity, it is the Afrikaners. If ever people have suffered from cultural bankruptcy and an identity crisis they are these narrow-minded nationalist Afrikaners. I say narrow-minded nationalist Afrikaners because Van Zyl Slabbert is also an Afrikaner, but he does not hold the same views as certain nationalists do. The point Dr Heese’s book eventually proved was that the Afrikaners are merely White Coloureds. They are a group without boundaries in the same way as the Coloureds are. [Interjections.] They have no definite origins and do not descend from a specific racial group.

One of the ironies of the Dias Festival was the SABC’s portrayal of the scene when Dias landed 500 years ago. A few White soldiers who were painted brown, were sitting around a campfire on the beach. Why did they not take Dr Treurnicht to go and sit there? Why did they not take Randall Wicomb or the Administrator of the Cape Province to go and sit there? They would not have had to paint themselves brown.

What about Arrie Paulus?

The announcer then went on to say:

They were innocent and naive, because 500 years later the beach would no longer be available to them or their descendants.

An official in the office of the hon the Minister said in a standing committee on the Electoral Act, when we asked him how many Whites were on the voters’ roll, that we should not laugh because at the time there were 101,6% Whites on the voter’s roll. What does that explain? What does that figure tell us? There are more people on the voter’s roll than have been born White. Why? Why are the Coloureds unable to increase in number? Every time they increase in number, a few are classified White. [Interjections.] Now we have the irony that there are 101,6% Whites on the voter’s roll, because every time we want to become more in order to take power, a few are classified White. Once again that illustrates the irony of our society.

Surely a society built on sand, a political system built on sea sand like that, cannot remain standing. This tricameral Parliament that has been built on such immoral foundations can never be a cornerstone for a peaceful future. At most it can be a transitional parliament.

All these things, all the laws which have been abolished thus far, simply lead back to this Act. A journalist put it so succinctly when he called it the granddaddy of apartheid, because without this Act the Group Areas Act can no longer succeed. This Act enables an immoral political system to be maintained and to dominate us. This Act makes it possible for a member of the Mafia, a criminal who has been found guilty of a crime in Switzerland, to come to South Africa and buy R5 million worth of assets, beautiful farms, while we, who were born here and have as much of a claim as the hon the Minister who was also born here, cannot do that as a result of the political system.

Therefore it is with a kind of ironic embitteredness that we ask the hon the Minister today to abolish this Act—even if only to save his own people the possible embarrassment of being classified Coloured at some time in the future.

Mr Chairman, I want to speak from personal experience under this outrageous law. Hon members should listen to what this Act has done to my family. My grandmother was born White. She married my grandfather who was Indian. My mother was classified Indian. She married my father, an Indian. Six children were born. Three were classified Indian, and three were classified Cape Malay. I was one of the children classified Cape Malay.

When I stood for the management committee in Port Elizabeth, I had to produce my identification document before they would believe that I was a Cape Malay. To crown it all, way back in 1980, I was called from my office by an official representing the Department of Community Development. He phoned me from my residence. I rushed home and to my surprise he informed me that my own parents could not reside in my outbuilding, because they were Indian. [Interjections.]

I pleaded with him and he left to discuss the problem with his seniors. The next day they informed me that they could not reside with me.

I fully support the motion as put by the hon member for Addo.

Mr Chairman, I listened very carefully to what was said here this afternoon and I want to say that I did so with care and understanding. I have appreciation and understanding for some of the hard things that were said here this afternoon. However, I do not have understanding for some of the other hard things that were said. Certain facts were correct but there were other facts that were not correct.

It is impossible for me to reply to all the issues and points raised here this afternoon. We will obviously have the opportunity to discuss them again when we deal with the Home Affairs Vote. I want to say, however, that many of the issues raised here today related to the Group Areas Act and I heard earlier this afternoon that this House proposes to discuss a motion in this regard as well. Many of the issues will then be raised again; so hon members will understand that I will not be dealing with them at this stage.

*We are experiencing a deafening loquacity in South Africa today. This reminds me of what Prof Piet Cillié, former editor of Die Burger, said a few years ago, viz:

I think we are all experiencing this, and I am not referring only to members of this House, but to everyone in South Africa. All of us are seeking answers to problems, and we must respect one another, accepting that each of us is honest and sincere in wanting to find the answers, despite any differences of opinion we may have.

†We in this Parliament in particular—in every House—should set an example to the rest of South Africa to do so with dignity. I am not saying that that was not done this afternoon, although I disagree very strongly with some allegations and statements that were made here.

*Sir, permit me to present you with a few basic arguments. The request is that certain provisions in the Population Registration Act or the Act as a whole be abolished. I want to try to indicate this afternoon that section 5 of the Act is a purely serviceable measure which … [Interjections.] Please permit me to complete my explanation. The mentioned section depends on other measures contained in the Statute Book for its serviceability. I want hon members to understand that, and they must grant me an opportunity to explain. [Interjections.] Hon members must listen now. Membership of the three Houses of Parliament and the franchise with reference to the election of members of the three Houses is regulated by the Constitution Act of the Republic of South Africa, 1983. This is done on the basis of the population group definitions in the Population Registration Act. [Interjections.] That is our Constitution. I am going to put my point now. Those who are appealing for the repeal of the race classification measures are therefore also asking for the present Parliament to be abolished … [Interjections.] … because our constitutional dispensation cannot function without these measures. [Interjections.] Give me a chance to complete my speech.

The Population Registration Act is a general law in terms of which the population is classified into different groups.

To what purpose?

Hon members make a contribution in Parliament in that, with the other Houses, they consider or abolish certain laws and therefore serve a useful purpose in Parliament. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the socio-economic sphere. The formation of groups is a fact of life.

What is a fact?

It is a fact that there are groups. Does the hon member want to deny that?

We do not deny it, but not according to race …

Order!

The essence of any group accommodation is that groups that choose to do so should have the freedom to lead an own community life. [Interjections.] The Government will respect this need. At the same time, however, the Government is well aware that as a social phenomenon, groups are not static, and that no group exists in a watertight compartment. [Interjections.] It is the duty of any responsible government to make allowances for any shift in emphasis that takes place in this sphere. I should so like hon members to listen to this. That is why section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act and influx control were abolished. It is because the Government acknowledges the fact that watertight compartments do not exist.

Such as here.

That is also why the Group Areas Act is being investigated with great responsibility at present. [Interjections.] In terms of the Population Registration Act, therefore, the simple truth is that the repeal of the legislation to which I referred, and which we abolished in this House together, has made a person’s classification irrelevant … [Interjections.] … for purposes of the activities regulated by that legislation. [Interjections.]

It is an unjustified oversimplification, therefore, to make this an issue, and to say it is merely a matter of either the total and summary abolition of the Population Registration Act, or the unqualified retention of this Act in its present form, with all the negative implications it had in the past.

I now want to refer to the political sphere. It is the Government’s standpoint that it is senseless to seek constitutional solutions by pretending that groups do not exist, or to think that the problems will resolve themselves if one ignores the reality of groups. Even the groups that allege that the existence of groups is an artificial creation of the NP Government have a long road before them. They will simply have to make allowances for the reality of groups in South Africa before they achieve their ideals.

People often ask whether the protection of groups cannot take place in other ways than by using groups as building-blocks. The word “building-blocks” was used here this afternoon.

Neither protection nor participation in structures by groups which lay claim to this, is possible without some formal identification of the members of such groups. This emerged even in the indaba proposals for purposes of representation in the Second Chamber and the Executive.

Do you agree with the indaba?

It emerged even in the indaba.

Do you agree with the indaba? [Interjections.]

No, I do not agree with the recommendations that were made there. I said that a long time ago. The hon member is not catching me out by putting that question.

It is sometimes claimed that the formal recognition of groups is unnecessary when the right of free association is guaranteed, because then individuals can form an alliance with other political parties freely as groups and can be represented on a proportional basis according to the strength of the party. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I must appeal to you to give me an opportunity to make my speech.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Essentially this model of free association is a majority model in which numbers are the decisive factor. Minority groups must either accept that they will always be in opposition, or they must conclude alliances with majority groups. Their bargaining position would be poor in such alliances because of their numbers. [Interjections.] This so-called “groupless approach” can do little to resolve group problems as such.

Neither continued oppression of minority groups, nor the fact that coup d’états had to be carried out in order to acquire power, could be prevented in non-Western states. The groupless independence constitutions made no contribution to resolving the critical group problems in any state in Africa or Asia. As far as the Government is concerned, it accepts the challenge of convincing the inhabitants of South Africa that the recognition of groups need not imply discrimination and domination. [Interjections.]

Although the Government is convinced that the group idea should still play a part in our constitutional future, the implications of the Population Registration Act in the constitutional sphere will inevitably depend on the understanding of constitutional patterns achieved among everyone by means of negotiation. We shall have to undergo this process.

I want to refer to something else as well. Earlier this afternoon there was a reference to history, in which an hon member said the Act under discussion was an NP creation. Any honest and serious researcher could indicate that history itself shows that the approach of accepting ethnic groups as a basis for political accommodation is as old as South Africa itself. History also shows that although the Afrikaner and the NP took this approach in 1948, they were not the creators of or the only ones to apply this approach.

†I indicated earlier that I had listened carefully and with concern to the honest expressions uttered by hon members in this House about the indignities they experienced. That is why intergroup and interpersonal relationships are so important and why they should be improved.

*The Government also wants to appeal for the elimination of prejudice and the purposeful fostering of positive attitudes on an interpersonal level. The best way of reducing friction between people and groups is discussion among all South Africans on all levels, which will have a ripple effect. The youth, our young people and children, cannot be excluded from the promotion of sound intergroup relations in any way. For this reason young South Africans must not grow up isolated from one another. [Interjections.] There should be more contact among them, and all of the hon members who are making such reckless interjections will agree with me if they think about this. [Interjections.] The various communities have a definite obligation to promote constructive contact, especially on the local level where there are numerous opportunities for meeting. The Government deems it necessary to point out and emphasise that it is not the only body responsible for sound intergroup relations. The involvement and responsibility of the private sector, churches and other organisations, and in particular of each individual, hon members included, is as great and as important.

†Distinction between groups is not an end in itself but a means for protecting groups in a society such as ours. If such a distinction affects the human dignity of some, if it gives rise to discrimination and if it causes friction instead of preventing friction, separation is not in the interests of peaceful co-existence and group protection.

The measures concerned should be adjusted or done away with. For this reason the Government is prepared to accept, in the interests of sound intergroup relations, the free association of individuals and groups in certain respects. [Interjections.]

Hon members must please be patient; I will come back to that.

That the Government is firmly committed to this is clear from the abolition of measures to which I referred earlier, such as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. [Interjections.]

This is likewise apparent from the autonomy granted to sports and recreation bodies, from the continued revision of measures such as those related to the use of amenities and public transport, and from the greater recognition and autonomy which is being given to the governing bodies of institutions in the field of tertiary education with regard to the composition of …

Order! The hon member for Matroosfontein must not sit there sleeping. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I want to say that the Government believes that other sectors in our community also have an important part to play. In the first place, the churches are specifically called upon to bring people closer to one another. [Interjections.] They must help build a shared vision, and thus to play a part as far as reconciliation among the people in our society is concerned. The Government therefore appeals to institutions like the churches to work within their own fields of responsibility. They must be true instruments for justice and reconciliation through responsible action.

The media also has an important part to play.

They must not play the various groups off against one another; they must fulfil the more important function of mediation between groups and individuals. The media can play a very important role in this regard, and it is their responsibility to do so in the times in which we live. [Interjections.]

*Sir, you know, we are here in a Parliament…

… to change laws!

… to maintain standards which redound to our credit.

This Act has no credit among the public. [Interjections.]

I think it is essential for every House to become aware of that. [Interjections.] It is quite in order …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think the hon the Minister is casting a reflection on this House. [Interjections.]

Order! We shall call the hon the Minister to order if he goes too far. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Scrap the Act! [Interjections.]

I appeal to hon members of this House to continue, and to fulfil the task entrusted to them, viz to institute an enquiry into the validity of certain legislation, with responsibility and to the best of their ability. I appeal to them to create a climate of co-operation in a spirit of co-operation.

With whom?

With the other Houses. [Interjections.]

Sir, I have made it clear that I cannot support the request contained made in this motion.

Tell us why not!

Consequently I cannot support the motion. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, when the hon the Minister refers to groups, are those groups based on race?

The groups are based inter alia on culture, language and a variety of other things.

Mr Chairman, a second question: A Portuguese Catholic is accepted in an Afrikaner school. Why cannot a person of colour—who is also Afrikaans-speaking and who belongs to the Dutch Reformed Church—also be accepted in the same school, if it is based on culture and language amongst other things?

We can pray together, but we cannot stay together!

Mr Chairman, this is a very long argument that we are being drawn into. I cannot, at the end of my speech, enter into an argument on this particular issue. [Interjections.] I will be very happy to discuss it with the hon member for Border in my office. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, never before in my short parliamentary career have I heard such a weak defence. Last weekend I came across a quote from Herakleitos in Herakleitos in Fragments, circa 500 BC. He said, and I quote:

I think that that is very applicable to the hon the Deputy Minister. Before I continue, I wish to relate another quote that struck me. James Baldwin, in Notes of a Native Son, 1959, said:

Mr Chairman, the person who does not recognise me as a person and a South African, is denying his own identity.

Sir, the hon the Minister referred to group areas and race classification as if they were two separate things, but the Group Areas Act is dependent on the Population Registration Act.

*I see we have discovered a new word today— service measures. Why do we need service measures? The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the election of the tricameral Parliament.

†The LP rejected the tricameral Parliament, because we believe in one Parliament for one South Africa. We say, forget about group representation. These attacks on our right to be in Parliament date back a long time. I recall that Effendi was the first Coloured person to be nominated as a candidate for Parliament in the late 1800s. At that time people had four votes each, but then the White members of Parliament—who were then in Parliament—passed an electoral Act, stating that one could only bring out one vote per person. The result was that Effendi lost the election.

The hon the Minister is quite correct when he says there are groups. However, what does he base those groups on? I have no objection to groups being based on voluntary characteristics, such as language, religion and culture. It is up to me to decide if I want to be Protestant, Catholic, Muslim or Buddhist. I can decide which language I want to speak. However, we find that the NP ideologies are based on non-voluntary characteristics, such as the colour of one’s skin and the texture of one’s hair!

*Go to the Cabinet and bring those hon members here. Then we shall see how many hon members in this House look more White than the Cabinet members themselves.

†I wish to assure the hon the Minister that I have no qualms about majority rule, because I believe that I belong to the majority of people who believe in democracy. I belong to that majority of people who believe in God. I belong to that majority of people who believe in justice.

*The hon the Minister says there should be more contact among young people. I agree with that wholeheartedly, but where is the ideal place for them to mix?

†Is it not at school? It was Malcolm X who said in 1965, “A segregated school system produces children who, when they graduate, graduate with crippled minds,” yet the hon the Minister still dares to refer to “keeping up certain standards”. Is he referring to the civilised standards which are mentioned in the Constitution? Are these the very same civilised standards which allow an iniquitous law such as the Group Areas Act? It is obvious that there is yawning chasm between the experiences of the hon the Deputy Minister and us in this House.

Question agreed to and amendment dropped.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, section 8B of the National Supplies Procurement Act, Act No 89 of 1970, empowers the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology to prohibit the disclosure of any information in relation to any goods or service, or of any statement, comment or rumour calculated directly or indirectly to convey such information. The Minister may institute such prohibition by way of a notice in the Gazette whenever he deems this necessary or expedient for the security of the Republic.

Clause 3 of the amending Bill extends the above-mentioned powers of the relevant Minister. The scope of section 8B is increased by the substitution for the words “for the security of the Republic” of the words “in the public interest”. Furthermore the Minister is empowered to address a prohibition to a person or particular persons.

In order to found the jurisdiction of the courts it is provided that if a South African citizen or a person domiciled in the Republic has contravened a prohibition referred to in section 8B (1) outside the Republic, it shall be deemed that he has contravened the prohibition at the place in the Republic where he is brought before the court.

Mr Chairman, we support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Nuweveld for his support of the Bill. I have been informed by the standing committee that hon members of this House lent their full support to this Bill in the standing committee and I want to thank them for that.

I should like to point out in this House that this is enabling legislation and that thus far we have not made use of the legislation. The reason for this amendment to the legislation is connected to trade statistics. We want to have the right, when we deem it necessary in the country’s interests, to keep trade statistics secret—there are different aspects of trade statistics such as country of origin, the amount traded etc.

We hope it will not be necessary to use the law constantly. We have as not made use of it as yet and I therefore thank the hon members for their confidence. The Government will make responsible use of the enabling provisions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the offering of a share block scheme which will result in agricultural land being subdivided is in reality contravening the objects or provisions of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, Act 70 of 1970, because these schemes could lead to people, especially the aged, being promised ownership of these properties which may never materialise. I feel the Government should make available or introduce a consultant to assist people by giving them advice. [Interjections.] The aged who have a low income are the people whom we should protect because when we were young they protected us. Developers should insure against the tremendous escalation in the cost of repairs to properties. They should not hold the share block directors, who could be elderly people, responsible for this. The committees that the developers will eventually establish as paper directors of properties are definitely going to be subjected to dictatorship by the developers. They could be completely exploited by the developers who may make them see to the maintenance of the properties with the developers excluding themselves from that responsibility completely.

Elderly tenants must be given a fair period of time in which to take up the share offer. The right of the aged tenant must be protected at all times.

In the event of insurance being necessary, it is the developer and not the directors who should arrange forward security. The developer should make allowances in his feasibility study for the protection of the share at all times. He should provide for upgrading, insurance and protection.

Mr Chairman, I would like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister if a person of colour who desires to buy shares, will be allowed, in terms of this Bill, to acquire those shares.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I could not investigate the matter beforehand. As far as I know, the occupancy of property is subject to the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] That is the impression I have, but I cannot elaborate on the technical side of this or reply to the hon member in this regard.

One can still buy in the wilderness.

My impression is that this is a matter of the occupancy of a building, the subdivision of that building into share blocks, and of the people living there having first option to buy shares. It is difficult to reply to the technical point raised by the hon member for Border. My impression, however, is that it is subject to the group area in which the property is located. I am not sure of this, but the advice I have just received in this regard is that at present this is the case in terms of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

Is the legislation that the House has to pass not also apartheid legislation?

I do not consider it in that light. I consider the measure as an improvement of the legislation—as the hon member for Strandfontein argued—in that we are looking more specifically at a status quo situation. We are considering the rights of the aged who have an income below a stipulated level, so that they can be protected in terms of the Rent Control Act. In this regard protection given to the aged is defined more fully. The legislation does not therefore contain any new principles; it is merely a question of existing systems within which the rights of the aged are being defined.

Are only White aged people covered in terms of the legislation or does it also cover other aged people?

The legislation has nothing to do with that.

Coloureds cannot buy, therefore.

The legislation deals with the occupants of the building which is developed by developers or owners into a share block scheme. In terms of the amending Bill the present occupants will receive precedence in respect of the purchase of shares.

Mr Chairman, I should like to comment on the speech made by the hon member for Strandfontein. I want to thank him for his support. The hon member specifically referred to the clause that deals with aged people above the age of 60 who have an income below a level stipulated in the Rent Control Act. He argued that a situation could arise in which an owner of a block of flats who might want to convert the block into share blocks, could exert pressure on ignorant old people, and said we should give special consideration to the protection of these people before they might be forced, or have too much pressure exerted upon them. He suggested that they should have access to a consultant who could advise them in signing contracts. These consultants should be employed by the Government. In reply to this I want to tell the hon member that we are advised by the permanent Advisory Committee on Company Law in regard to the legislation and I am going to refer his request to the committee under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Cecil Margo, to investigate and possibly amend the Act.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, a short amendment of approximately 22 lines is proposed in this Bill, but it is accompanied by a long explanation.

When the Labour Party decided to take part in the tricameral Parliament—and I make a distinction between participation and acceptance of the Constitution—we did so with a specific purpose in mind, viz to rectify what was wrong and to point out to those who wear blinkers the injustices they have perpetrated against us. Sometimes I get the impression that they are willing themselves to be deaf as well. We agree, however, that the proposed amendments are correct and necessary and in the interests of our beautiful country and its people.

The Copyright Amendment Bill is a rectification of the attempted rectification of 1983 which held many disadvantages for certain businesses. Some of those businesses have even gone bankrupt. The proposed amendments seek to remove the protection afforded by copyright to industrial articles and so-called industrial designs which have a utilitarian purpose and are manufactured through an industrial process. Industrial articles can still be protected by the Patents Act, Act 57 of 1987, or the Designs Act, Act 75 of 1967. Copyright in respect of a work of art is established automatically and immediately the moment the work of art is created by its author. Consequently, the author of a two-dimensional copy enjoys double protection. At present the author of a work of art enjoys protection for 10 years. The problem with this provision is that anybody can go to the patent office and obtain a two-dimensional copy of a patent that has lapsed. He can then manufacture the product. If this is discovered by the owner of the patent, he may compel the person who is manufacturing the product to cease his activities or to pay him a licence fee. This creates a kind of instrument for blackmail, since people still enjoy protection in terms of the copyright. If the manufacturer refuses to cease his activities, the author may institute legal action against him.

Who says so?

I say so; did the hon member not hear me? [Interjections.] This is a very expensive process. Many small manufacturers ceased their production after receiving the first threatening letter. In the process many people have been left jobless. This happens mainly in cases where firms do not wish to put up with competition. There have also been cases of overseas firms such as American, Canadian, British, German and Swiss firms instituting this kind of litigation. They do not enjoy this kind of right, but in South Africa it is possible for them to enforce this on South African firms.

This is the way things are in South Africa. White immigrants enjoy more privileges than people of colour who were born in this country. Some of them had representation in Parliament long before we did, whereas the majority of us were excluded.

There are even countries that are not kindly disposed towards our country that have used this Act to our detriment. I can give a few examples of cases in this regard. I refer hon members to page 1 of Appendix 6 of the document entitled, “Copyright Amendment Bill” which was given to us in the standing committee. I quote:

Note that this was ten years later. The next quotation has reference to another case.

Page 3 of the appendix has details of yet another case:

The list goes on. According to the officials legal action is instituted merely in order to put people out of business, because employing an attorney to defend one’s case involves putting down approximately R50 000 just as a beginning. It would probably cost much more. Some of these people get such a fright that they simply back out.

I believe there was a certain firm that manufactured a product locally for about R24. This firm was also asked by an American firm to stop manufacturing the product. The American firm sold the product at R80.

In order to assist the hon the State President in his attempt to strengthen this country’s economy and to create more job opportunities, I suggest that we accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, we discussed the Copyright Amendment Bill in the committee and approved it, since patents and art are being separated. It is in fact a protective measure for industrial companies.

The previous speaker dealt with the Bill thoroughly, but I want to add that we consulted various bodies, such as the Advisory Committee on Copyright. We also spoke to the hon Mr Justice L T S Hans of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The matter has therefore not been taken lightly. Nor did the committee discuss it superficially; they made a thorough investigation. I therefore want to warn hon members not to joke about this. We requested the assistance of the Supreme Court as well as academics from Unisa, such as Prof I du Plessis, professor in commerce at Unisa and an expert on patents and copyright. The matter went through many stages, therefore, before being tabled. The late Dr Jan Steyn, attorney and senior partner in the firm of Adam and Adam was also consulted. Dr C J Ratterey, departmental attorney and senior partner in the firm M D Kisch, was also consulted. The department did not simply bring the matter to Parliament. They investigated it thoroughly and I feel many South African companies are being protected by this. I therefore support this Amending Bill.

Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, does the hon the Deputy Minister consider abolishing the copyright of aliens from countries which support sanctions against this country?

Mr Chairman, I want to reply to the hon member as follows: We are one of the founding signatories of the Berne Convention of 1986 which is endorsed by 70 other countries. Our international obligations under copyright are therefore of immense importance. It is not a matter of concern whether or not countries apply sanctions against us. In fact that has nothing to do with this legislation. In the case of sanctions it is, of course, important to consult the Statute Book. One has to consider whether the Statute Book supports the economic policy and especially the long-term economic goals of the Government. In that sense we trade with all countries, because it is important that our industry benefits and that no restrictions are placed on the road to development. This legislation does not, however, deal specifically with sanctions. Is that a satisfactory reply?

Sir, certain inhabitants of those countries which voted for sanctions against South Africa enjoy copyright in this country. Is it not proper that we lift the copyright protection from those people?

Mr Chairman, we are of the opinion that sanctions will be a transitory phenomenon and we are operating accordingly. We believe that our international obligations are of a long-term nature. In terms of the Copyright Act—and this will answer the hon member’s question for the greater part—we have power of notice in the Gazette.

We exercised that power on 25 September last year to specify that citizens of other countries would enjoy the protection of copyright in South Africa only insofar as they enjoy the same protection of copyright in their own countries. Naturally that is only a partial arrangement. In most other countries, industrial articles—that is what is at issue here—are not protected by copyright.

I should like to react to the contributions by the hon members for Newclare and Heidedal. I want to thank them for the knowledgeable way in which they spoke. On seeing with what insight the hon member for Newclare spoke here, one might think he had worked in a patent office for a long time. I want to thank him sincerely. I have also been informed that hon members on both sides of this House support this legislation enthusiastically.

I want to extend another word of thanks, which goes to our officials, who, as hon members have said, made a very thorough study of the subject. I could also rely on people outside the Public Service. The names of some of them from whom we received a lot of support have been mentioned here. They gave us advice, completely free of charge, and put in many hours of work themselves.

I have also received letters, telexes, etc—apparently because there has been some reaction in the public Press—in which people indicated their satisfaction with this legislation and encouraged the Government to have the legislation placed on the Statute Books as soon as possible and to implement it. I also want to thank those people for their support.

I think it is important to take another brief look at what copyright, patent right and copyright relating to designs are and what protection they enjoy. Copyright is really intended as a protection for publishers, artists and writers. It is not something one can register at a patent office or anything of that nature. Copyright comes into being automatically. If one has written a book, one has copyright on it and if one has painted a painting, one has copyright on it. That copyright is valid for 50 years after the year in which one dies; in other words, in most cases where these things come into question, they are valid for a century. That applies to the works of artists and writers.

An unfortunate situation has arisen—it has all been explained in the laborious and comprehensive Second Reading speech—that copyright, which was not really intended to have anything to do with industrial articles such as cogwheels, axles, exhaust pipes, etcetera has become applicable to industrial articles. If one wants to patent an industrial article, one has to go to the patent office and prove its novelty and originality. Once one has gone through the entire process, one can receive 20 years’ protection. After 20 years have passed, one’s patent is available to the general public. That is the case in any country.

In terms of the Designs Act, a design can be registered—a design being something of aesthetic value, such as a beautifully shaped bottle or the elegant gable of a house—and this protection is valid for 20 years after which anyone is free to use that shape. Once one’s patent-right has expired, anyone is free to use the patent. While one has patent-rights, however, anyone else who wants to use one’s patent has to pay one royalties. That is the principle which applies in our country.

It appears that approximately 95% of all the money that the SBDC has made available to small businessmen was spent on people other than minor industrialists. The money was available to businessmen, traders, etcetera, but we actually want to assist the small industrialist to start his business. The hon member for Newclare mentioned cases where legal proceedings were instituted against small industrialists. This has never been aimed at the large industrialists, but at the artisan who has a few people in his employ and enters the manufacturing industry by manufacturing parts. It is true that such people are discriminated against in that their businesses are closed. There have been many such court cases. One firm of attorneys which was not satisfied with this amending Bill approached me and told me that they have had to abandon 40 court cases concerning foreign firms litigating local firms merely as a result of the publication of the measure in the Gazette on 25 November 1987.

We should approach the legislation in the light of deregulation. As the hon member for Newclare said, it is a step against monopolies in the country. It is in accordance with the Government’s policy of free competition. I have already told the hon member that reciprocity in terms of the Berne Convention applies and that we could make an important announcement, namely that citizens of another country would only receive protection under copyright in this country to the extent to which they enjoy that protection in their own country in terms of that country’s laws. In this way the matter of foreign authors or people under copyright has in fact been dealt with.

The question arises, however: What rights do one’s own people enjoy in their own country under copyright? Because the Berne Convention specifies that foreigners may not be treated any differently from locals, this legislation is essential to place the locals in the same category, namely that they will not receive protection of industrial articles under copyright. At the beginning of January a member of Parliament wrote to me with reference to a case I want to quote. It concerns a small firm on the Rand which received a summons. The small firm has been in operation since 1920 or thereabouts. It is a family concern and is now in the possession of the second or third generation. The firm has approximately 70 people in its service who have worked for the business for many years. They were summonsed because they had manufactured spare parts of a specific machine. The people were demanding compensation from them for the number of spare parts of each kind that they had manufactured over the years, multiplied by the profit which the original manufacturers of the equipment would have made if they had sold it, plus interest on the amount. This comes to a total of between R20 million and R28 million. This could wipe out a small firm such as this, but luckily we could tell them that we had already envisaged copyright amending legislation which could deal with the matter.

Once again I want to thank hon members and in conclusion I want to make one more point. It would be incorrect to gauge the value and significance of the Bill in terms of the length of the amending Bill. It covers half a page, but I want to tell hon members it is one of the most important items of legislation which we have been able to pass this session in support of the Government’s economic policy in respect of the small artisan who has entered the manufacturing industry.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

What this amounts to is that we are withdrawing the Patents Amendment Bill, Act No 62 of 1987. This year we are introducing a new Patents Amendment Bill which includes the 1987 amending Bill. It is an item of legislation which was carried over from last year and which we should like to withdraw. Because it has been referred to the Standing Committee, that committee has had to recommend to the House that it be withdrawn.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The same argument applies in this regard. The Hotels Amendment Bill was not discussed last year. We support the motion of the Standing Select Committee that the amending Bill be withdrawn. We are preparing a new and more comprehensive amending Bill.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the State President I wish to make the following statement to the House:

Mr Chairman, I just wish to explain that, as in the case of Natal, the other committees work continuously.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Everyone was aware of the fact that she had taken ill on her return from India and that she had not recovered from that illness.

We at Pelikan Park did not know the type of situations we would face when we arrived here in 1984, and we are thankful for the warmth, the companionship and, at times, the wise counsel which our female community in Cape Town has given us. I want to say that one of those ladies who stands out in one’s memory was the late Mrs Chan Rampersadh.

I have personally known the family for approximately 25 years, especially in my association with the field of football administration. I have seen her stand at the side of her husband, of her family and of the Pietermaritzburg community, and at the side of the sporting fraternity in particular.

I think what we shall actually miss at Pelikan Park is the excellent manner in which she hosted people both in her own home and at Pelikan Park. We feel this loss terribly but, as I stated at the funeral yesterday, God in his own wisdom decides. We must accept the decision of the Almighty and dare not challenge his decision.

On behalf of all members of this House, I convey our deepest condolences to Mr Chan Rampersadh and the members of his family.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, I also wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed and to extend to Mr Rampersadh and the members of his family our deep and sincere condolences at the passing away of his wife.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PRP, I want to associate myself and my colleagues with the sentiments that have been expressed in this House at the passing away of Mrs Rampersadh.

Motion agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The National Supplies Procurement Act, 1970, empowers the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, among other things, to exercise control over goods and services as well as over the manufacture, production, processing and treating of goods. In this regard section 8B provides that the Minister may prohibit the disclosure of certain information in relation to goods or services, or any statement, comment or rumour calculated directly or indirectly to convey such information, whenever the Minister deems it necessary or expedient for the security of the Republic.

Due to the particular situation in which the Republic finds itself internationally, it has become necessary to empower the Minister to prohibit the disclosure of information in relation to goods and services in circumstances which do not necessarily relate to the security of the Republic. Consequently, it has been decided to amend the said section 8B in order to provide for the Minister to exercise his powers in regard to the disclosure of the information envisaged in the Act, whenever he deems it necessary or expedient in the public interest.

Section 8B is being amended further in order to enable the Minister to effect such prohibition not merely by way of a notice in the Gazette, as the Act currently stipulates, but also by way of a written notice to the person or persons concerned.

Finally, in order to bring any extra-territorial contravention of the Act within the ambit of the South African judicial system, a subsection (3) is added to section 8B. The effect of this new subsection is that such contravention by a South African citizen or a person domiciled in the Republic shall be deemed to have been committed at the place in the Republic where he is brought before the court. This resolves any question that may arise in regard to the jurisdiction of a court in respect of such person.

Mr Chairman, firstly I would like to welcome the hon the Minister to this House.

The National Supplies Procurement Amendment Bill has three objects. They are, to extend the Minister’s authority to prohibit the disclosure of information by the substitution of the words “for the security of the Republic” for “in the public interest”, to regulate the extra-territorial application of the above, and to provide that any court before which a person who contravened the above stipulation is brought, shall have the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter.

We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House wish to support the Bill for the reasons provided by the hon the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech. The Bill, apart from the amendments to section 8B of the existing legislation, also provides for some technical correction, and we support the measure.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank hon members for their contributions and for supporting the Bill. I also thank the hon member who welcomed me here. I also thank hon members of this House for their contributions in the standing committee. I am told that the contributions of hon members of this House are always of a very high standard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Companies Act, 1973, provides for a Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. It is also the function of the Standing Advisory Committee to make recommendations from time to time to the responsible Minister concerning amendments to the Share Blocks Control Act, 1980. Thus, the amendments to the Share Blocks Control Act proposed in this Bill were recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee on the basis of representations to it by interested parties mainly during 1985 and 1986.

In the first of the proposed amendments, share block schemes in respect of agricultural land are made subject to approval in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970. Various companies have in recent years started to operate share block schemes in respect of agricultural land owned or leased by them. Hunting farms as well as farm holiday schemes which are coupled with property timesharing are but two examples in this regard. Some of these schemes could result in the subdivision of agricultural land in contravention of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970. This amendment will prevent any unlawful or undesirable subdivision of agricultural land.

The duties of a share block developer in connection with the opening of a sectional title register are dealt with in the next amendment. Most share block schemes are launched with a view to converting them into sectional title schemes at a later stage. Prospective purchasers are sometimes brought under the impression by developers that they would eventually get full ownership of the property concerned under sectional title, and then buy these share blocks on that understanding.

However, in practice it often happens that for various reasons developers fail to convert particular share block schemes into sectional title schemes and shareholders then find that should they prefer to convert to sectional title, they would have to pay the costs of such a conversion themselves. In order to correct this undesirable situation the Act will henceforth compel a share block developer when marketing shares in a share block company, to disclose whether or not a sectional title scheme is intended. If so, he will then also be liable for the costs of the particular conversion. Furthermore, he will be compelled to furnish a purchaser concerned with a written guarantee by a financial institution in regard to the costs of conversion.

The next amendment relates to the protection of certain tenants in a building in respect of which a share block scheme is to be brought into operation. These tenants are those who must be 65 years or older and who have an income within the limits which qualify them for protection in terms of the Rent Control Act, 1976. At present they enjoy protection in the sense that, for so long as a protected tenant occupies a particular part of a building, developers intending to convert that building into a share block scheme may offer for sale and sell shares in respect of the unit occupied by the protected tenant only to that tenant and not to third persons.

The disadvantages of this restriction are: Firstly, a share block scheme as well as any conversion into a sectional title scheme cannot be finalised if the protected tenant does not take up the shares. Secondly, the share block company must remain in existence indefinitely and the costs of keeping these companies alive is quite considerable. Thirdly, it negates the objective of the share block developer which is to sell shares in the development.

All these negative implications could be overcome by allowing the shares concerned to be offered and sold to persons other than a protected tenant if the protected tenant does not wish to or cannot take up the shares but, and this is important, subject to the right of the protected tenant to continue occupying that part of the building for as long as he qualifies for the protection.

The last amendment concerns the liability of directors, share block developers and officers of a share block company where the immovable property of the company is not insured as required by the Act, and the company or its members suffer damages as a result thereof. In terms of the Act, the directors of a share block company must insure the immovable property of the company. Should the company or any member of the company suffer damages as a result of failure to comply with this stipulation, the said directors as well as the share block developer and officers of the company may at present be jointly and severally held liable to compensate the company or member for such damages.

The amendment will have the effect that only the directors of a share block company will henceforth be held liable for damages suffered in this particular instance.

Mr Chairman, the Share Blocks Control Amendment Bill, 1988, has four important objectives. The first is to make it imperative to obtain the consent of the Minister of Agriculture to operate a share block scheme on agricultural lands, as defined in the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970. The second is to compel a share block developer to furnish a guarantee to the purchaser with regard to the cost where such a developer indicates that he intends opening a sectional title register at some future date. The third is to protect the aged. It affords aged persons whose income does not exceed a certain amount the right to continue their occupation of controlled premises where such premises are to be incorporated into a share block scheme after it has been sold. This is to protect retired persons particularly against the undesirable conduct of developers. The final objective is to henceforth hold only the directors of a share block company responsible for damages suffered as a result of their failure to insure a particular building.

Mr Chairman, I should therefore like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I raised this matter in the standing committee and I should like to raise it again for the benefit of the Minister. I am referring to clause 4 of this Bill. It reads as follows:

My submission is this: One cannot equate the shareholders of a company of that nature with those of a company as we know it in business where the directors are more aware of their responsibilities. What has caused me concern is this: Let us assume that there was a failure on the part of the director to carry out his obligations as a result of which the people involved suffered a loss. When a claim is lodged against this particular director he has nothing. That could very easily happen. What protection do those people really have in a case where a director is appointed because he happens to be one of the people involved and then owing to an omission on his part serious damage is suffered by these people and when they fall back on him he has nothing to offer them or to compensate them with?

I thought I would bring this to your notice in this debate, Sir.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister elaborated at length in his Second Reading speech on the necessity for this amending Bill.

It is so that no director of any company could give any real assurances to the shareholders of any particular scheme if that particular company were to go bankrupt. I think that is one of the hard facts of economic life in this country.

As far as this particular Bill is concerned we are pleased that certain safeguards have been written in, particularly the new section 8(a)(1) in clause 2. This clause does bring a degree of security to people that become involved in this kind of scheme.

What we are aware of is that recently one has been hearing a great deal about share block schemes. One hears a great deal about the purchase of certain weeks at holiday homes and so on, which are basically all governed by this particular measure.

As far as agricultural land is concerned, I get the impression that in the amendment as reflected in clause 1, where there is now an addition—clause 5(l)(a)—the whole issue of the consent of the Minister concerned with agriculture is involved. I just want to say that to us as a community, if I may say so, this holds very little water. There is no real benefit for us in it because whatever agricultural land we have had over the years has been whittled down. In Natal where we have some farmers, the number of farmers has been whittled down, so it is not a measure that really affects us. However, perhaps it is a good principle to ensure that economical agricultural land is not cut up into little strips which will become uneconomical units, and that the whole issue of sectional title with regard to agricultural land should naturally not take place.

We are aware that, particularly in the North Eastern Transvaal, there are certain people that buy large farms—game farms—and then decide to create a share block scheme. I believe the amendments contained in this measure will assist in regulating the sale of shares in such share block schemes and that at the end of the day, whoever the consumer may be, at least there will be some degree of protection for him provided for in these amendments. For that reason we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, first of all I was somewhat taken aback by the statements made by the hon member Mr Abram as far as cutting up agricultural land into strips is concerned. He says the truth is that it does not affect us.

But we are all Indian South Africans. We are all South Africans. What happens to South Africa affects all of us. We should be concerned about that. I am pretty surprised at that hon member’s attitude. This is a Parliament of South Africa—a Parliament of the RSA. It is not a Parliament of Indians.

This Bill brings back a memory to me of 1946 when one of South Africa’s greatest statesmen, Jan Christiaan Smuts, was asked to extend a particular anti-Indian law over ail of South Africa. He made the statement in Parliament that you can get the world’s top 10 statesmen together and draft legislation, but the people will find a way—a loophole—to break that law.

I am concerned with agriculture. In terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act of 1970 no agricultural land can be subdivided without the prior consent of the Minister of Agriculture. That is a very good Act, because some businessmen were who bought farms and, in order to make money, subdivided them into unviable units. Then those people who bought these small holdings at a higher price were unable to earn a living on that piece of land. They were actually destroying the farming industry by that malpractice. The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act of 1970 put a stop to that practice.

However, I was surprised to learn, when this Bill came before me, that the sectional title share holders were actually contravening the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act of 1970. I am pleased that this Bill is now putting a stop to that deliberate destruction of the farming industry. I am also pleased that this Bill offers protection for shareblock holdings. Therefore I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon members for their support for this amendment Bill.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the issue of the liability of directors who are “men of straw” and who cannot produce any money to pay for their ports.

We on this side have considered this matter and the present approach is really the best we can do in order to hold the directors responsible. It is not feasible to compel directors to insure against their own failure to comply with the statutory duties, and the normal market mechanisms must take their course. We cannot do any more in this regard.

The hon member Mr Abram said that there was really no benefit for the Indian community which owns very little farming land. I do not think that we can do anything about that in terms of this Act.

The hon member for Camperdown raised the matter of the possibility that under shareblock schemes agricultural land could be subdivided. This was a loophole, but it is no longer possible because we have amended the Act specifically for that purpose. This was brought to our attention by the hon Minister of Agriculture. Apparently the practice did begin that agricultural land was subdivided through this mechanism.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

I want to deliver a rather extensive Second Reading speech and I ask the hon members to please be patient.

This is a very technical matter of great importance, although the Bill consists of only one page.

The purpose of the amendments envisaged by the Bill is to terminate copyright protection in regard to industrial articles, so-called industrial designs, having a utilitarian purpose and manufactured through an industrial process.

Industrial articles of this nature are still entitled to protection if these are registered as patents or designs, provided that the requirements of the Patents Act, No 57 of 1978, or the Designs Act, No 57 of 1967, are complied with. Furthermore, the original underlying idea of such an industrial article is still protected against slavish imitations by competitors under the common-law principles of unfair competition as set out in the decided case of Schultz v Butt, 1986 (3) SA 667 (A). It may be added that in many instances the Act at present protects, under copyright, articles which have no artistic or creative merit and which could never meet the requirements for registerability under the patent and design laws. For example, the mere appearance of a split pin in a drawing immediately gives the pin a ten-year term of copyright protection.

The purpose referred to is attained in that the proposed amendment of the law determines that it will no longer be a breach of copyright if a person reproduces a three-dimensional industrial article which has a utilitarian purpose, is manufactured through an industrial process and has already been made available to the public.

The amendment has become necessary on account of continuously increasing litigation and threatened litigation over the past 7 to 8 years, as a result of which South African industrialists are forced, time and again, to discontinue production of one or other industrial article—in some cases after production of such articles had taken place openly for a number of years. In most cases the party instituting the proceedings, or threatening to do so, was a foreign party relying on copyright held in a drawing or design. In a large number of cases the drawing or design that constituted the alleged copyright was quite old, even as much as 70 years old.

The industrial articles we are concerned with here include a wide range of items relating, inter alia, to components for heavy machinery, pumps, valves, spare parts for vehicles, mining, equipment etc. The spare parts industry is particularly vulnerable.

If the full implications of copyright are borne in mind, it becomes clear that the existing position will of necessity have, and is having, a detrimental effect on development in South Africa, in particular on the small industrialist’s entry into the manufacturing industry.

At this moment a very unsatisfactory position exists which is, in particular, to the disadvantage of the South African manufacturer of spare parts and other industrial articles, namely that of so-called designs, which do not qualify for patent or design registration, enjoying automatic protection under the Copyright Act without registration.

This potentially detrimental copyright position came about in South Africa during 1978 with the promulgation of the existing Copyright Act, No 98 of 1978. In the preceding Copyright Act, No 63 of 1965, specific provision was made, in Section 11, that copyright in artistic works, for example a drawing, was restricted in cases where articles made according to the drawings were utilised in industry. In those circumstances there was no violation of the copyright if such articles were manufactured and sold by somebody else. There was consequently a specific stipulation in the Copyright Act of 1965 attempting to exclude protection of articles with an industrial purpose or application from the ambit of copyright.

The current Copyright Act, No 98 of 1978 does not contain any similar provisions. There is consequently no provision to restrict copyright in respect of plans used in the manufacturing of articles through an industrial process. In due course this shortcoming in the Act gave rise to problems, and shortly afterwards court cases were reported in which the manufacture of industrial articles was stopped on the strength of copyright; for example: Scaw Metals Ltd v Apex Foundry Ltd 1982 (2) SA 377 (D); Tolima (Pty) Ltd v Cugacius Motor Accessories (Pty) Ltd 1983 (3) SA 405 (W); Saunders Valve Co Ltd v Klep Valves (Pty) Ltd 1985 (1) SA 646 (T); and on appeal, 1987 (2) SA 1 (A).

The circumstances and developments to which I have referred initiated strong representations from different interested groups and this resulted in the 1983 amendment of the Act in an effort to alleviate the problem.

Evaluated objectively, it has become clear that the 1983 amendment did not bring any relief. Firstly, a measure of relief will only be felt in 1993 as a result of this amendment, and then only in respect of old articles in existence before 1983. Components shown in drawings dated after 1983 have 10 years of copyright left, measured from their introduction. The reason for this is that a 10-year period has been laid down in section 15 (3A) (6), during which period all three-dimensional reproductions made available to the public up to and including the date of promulgation of the amending Act are still protected against copying—and this includes all the reproductions which are still under copyright, even those made available to the public decades before.

This means that, although the underlying aim of the 1983 amendment was to restrict the copyright of three-dimensional reproductions, this amendment forcefully brought to the notice of copyright owners the fact that whilst they enjoyed restricted rights under the old Act, full rights for the next 10 years were given under the 1983 amending Act. This could be one explanation for the serious increase in litigation or threatened litigation that followed. At present only half of this 10-year term has lapsed and the next five years would undoubtedly see an escalation in litigation.

There is uncertainty over the existence of copyright. Since there is no provision for registration in a public register, it is difficult, and in practice virtually impossible, for a prospective manufacturer to determine with any degree of certainty whether or not a particular article forms the subject of copyright, and if so, when the 10-year period in respect of such article expires. Although the problem is partially addressed by the provisions of section 26 (8), it must be borne in mind that section 26 (8) was inserted for the benefit of the plaintiff and his onus of proof. No responsibility rests on the owner of the copyright to mark his three-dimensional reproductions according to the provisions of this section.

Accordingly, there exists a strong feeling among jurists, practitioners and manufacturers that the 1983 amendment did not provide a satisfactory solution.

At the time of the 1983 amendment the whole matter of copyright protection of industrial articles was extensively considered and debated and the Standing Advisory Committee on Copyright actually conducted public hearings at which evidence and representations from interested parties were heard. At that stage there were—and even today there are—serious and irreconcilable differences in the matter. Hence the 1983 amendment was, in fact, the result of a compromise decision. In retrospect it is clear that it was not a very good decision.

A further important question is whether South Africa is unique in respect of the problems experienced with copyright in the reproduction of industrial articles.

Similar problems have, in fact, occurred in Great Britain and some Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. In most other countries, including Germany and the USA, the copyright legislation functions in such a manner that true functional industrial articles, ie functional articles with no artistic or aesthetic value, do not enjoy copyright protection. Such articles may, however, be protected in some other manner.

The present position in Britain, due to the British Design Copyright Act, 1968, is in general similar to the section 15(3A) position of South Africa. It is clear that this position is not very satisfactory, and in a judgment of the House of Lords in the case of British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd 1986 FSR 221 the court allowed reproduction of the exhaust system by a third party, admittedly on a legal principle not applicable in South Africa. From the judgement it is clear, however, that the court was against the idea that copyright should be used to prevent the manufacturing of spare parts. In the new British draft Bill on copyright of July 1987 provisions have been made in terms of which no copyright protection will be granted in respect of articles which are not in themselves artistic works, and that no violation of copyright will occur if such articles are made or copied.

In Canada the courts started, in recent years, to grant copyright protection in respect of functional articles and utility items which were three-dimensional reproductions of drawings. In other words, the principle applied in South African courts was also applied in Canada. The Canadian Advisory Committee on Copyright reacted immediately and an amending Bill followed which put it beyond any doubt that three-dimensional articles with a utility purpose, of which 50 or more were produced, would receive no copyright protection.

This amendment is very similar to the amendment contained in the present Bill. The same restriction on copyright has also been introduced in the Republic of Ireland.

This amending Bill brings South Africa into line with international realities and simultaneously puts the small manufacturer in a position in which he can safely and with certainty plan his future activities.

The State law advisers have recommended that the amending Bill be made retrospective from 25 September 1987. I support this view because on that date a notice was issued by me making the rights of foreigners subject to reciprocity. Since that date a disparity has existed between South African authors and authors in foreign countries. If section 4 of the Berne Convention is examined, it is clear that member countries should at all times treat all authors, ie authors of the country concerned and authors of other member countries, on an equal basis. If this legislation were therefore not made retrospective from 25 September 1987, it would create an unequal situation that could affect South Africa detrimentally.

Mr Chairman, at present copyright protection might be enjoyed for up to 100 years. The purpose and effect of the amendment envisaged by the Copyright Amendment Bill is that industrial articles, such as components for heavy machinery and pumps, and spare parts for vehicles and equipment, may no longer enjoy copyright protection for more than ten years. The amendment is urgently necessary as a result of the continuous and increasing volume of litigation and threatened litigation over the past years. As a result of litigations, South African industrialists are forced time and again to discontinue production. In some cases entrepreneurs had to discontinue after production had taken place openly for a number of years.

A number of groups have been heard not to object to the amendment. This House has heard the hon the Minister state that most of the companies that did object to this Amendment Bill are overseas companies. These companies do not enjoy the protection in overseas countries. The hon the Minister has mentioned such cases. Why is it that they want protection here in South Africa? They can trade without the said protection and I think a period of 10 years is enough. In the case of sanctions it is the South African firms and South African entrepreneurs that have to carry the burden. The overseas companies leave us in the lurch and go away. We have had many examples of this. [Interjections.]

I think it is the duty of this House and the Government to work in the best interests of the South African entrepreneur and of South Africa as a whole, and one way of doing it is by supporting and passing this Bill. I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Deputy Minister gave us a very good explanation of the reasons for the need for this Amendment Bill. The reasons are really of a very technical nature. We do not see any reason for not supporting the Bill and we therefore support it.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members sincerely for supporting this very complicated but very important Bill. As I have said, it is very short—it is merely half a printed page in length—and it boils down to scrapping some clauses in the existing Act.

I want to emphasise that companies from foreign countries that complained against the scrapping of the relevant provisions in the Act have become used to enjoying rights in this country which they do not enjoy in their own countries. I also want to emphasise that we still have a Patents Act—it is a very good act—and a Designs Act in this country. Under the Patents Act a person could get protection for his patent for 20 years. If one wants to register a patent at the Patents Office one must demonstrate some degree of novelty and some degree of ingenuity. One can then get protection for 20 years. Under the Designs Act one must demonstrate the aesthetic value of a model and then one can also get protection for 15 years.

However, it is very important to realise, as one hon member mentioned, that in the case of copyright which is intended to protect authors, one does not register one’s rights. These rights come into being automatically and these rights that one enjoys under the Copyright Act apply for a period of 50 years after the end of the year of one’s death.

It is therefore very important to differentiate between industrial articles made through industrial processes and works of art on the other hand. We no longer want to give industrial articles the protection that they enjoyed in this country in the past. It is very important for the small manufacturer in the country that this Amendment Bill should be passed in Parliament and become legislation.

In all countries—especially a country like South Africa—the small industrialist normally enters the economy through the manufacturing of spare parts. This was not possible for such a small manufacturer in this country over the past decade. If we look at the funds made available by the Small Business Development Corporation over the past few years—I think it was since 1980—then we see that 95% of the funds were made available for the small businessman in the sense of the small trader but only 5% of the money was used by the small industrialist.

What we dearly need in this country is that the small industrialists enter the economy and start making spare parts etc.

The persons objecting to this amending Bill—and there are only a few outside—are people who are in a monopolistic position. They want to enjoy a monopoly with regard to the provision of spare parts in this country. People come here to sell the original equipment and do not make a profit through that. They want to make their profits at a later date by selling spare parts. Now we are opening the doors to the manufacturers of spare parts to come and sell these parts which are manufactured locally at, in many cases, a quarter of the price of those offered by the manufacturers of the original equipment.

I thank hon members also for their support in the standing committee where I believe they supported this Bill from the outset, and also for their fine support in this hon House this afternoon.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The total expenditure of local authorities during the 1984/5 financial year was R9 060 million. In the same financial year central Government expenditure was R28 534 million. This gives an indication of the extent of municipal expenditure and the funds which municipal accountants have to administer.

In pursuit of cost-effective and efficient administration at local government level it is therefore necessary to ensure that municipal accountants are qualified for the profession they practise.

The Municipal Accountants’ Bill has as its main objective control over the profession of municipal accountants. A professional non-statutory body, the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, also abbreviated as IMTA, has been in existence since 1929 and has ever since undertaken the training of municipal treasurers and accountants maintaining a high level of professional conduct.

As a result of the efforts of the Institute, a great contribution has been made over the years to the training of municipal treasurers and accountants who were subsequently granted membership of the Institute. The Institute controls the profession to the best of its ability through a code of conduct which demands a high standard from its members, but has no formal authority to enforce its code of conduct and norms with respect to its members.

The Permanent Finance Liaison Committee would therefore recommend that a statutory body for accountants of local authorities be established. In co-operation with other bodies such as the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs, the Institute recommended that the legislation be enacted to provide for the establishment of a Board for Municipal Accountants to control the profession. With reference to a draft bill drafted by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants the matter was thoroughly discussed at a meeting of the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Authority Affairs on 26 March 1985. After the draft bill had been redrafted and referred to the State law advisers it was published for comment in the Gazette of 12 September 1986.

Comments were received from various bodies. The recommendations and proposals of those bodies were thoroughly considered and after further consultation the majority of the recommendations were included in the Bill. After that the Bill was published a second time for general cognisance in the Gazette.

I mentioned this extensive liaison and deliberation to show that nothing was left undone to ensure that this legislation was drafted to the satisfaction of all concerned. As was mentioned during discussion of the draft Bill in the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development, agreement was reached over party-political boundaries regarding the contents of the Bill. The importance of a professional body for municipal accountants cannot be overemphasised, since municipal officials are responsible for the proper accounting of and control over public funds at local level. Furthermore, it is their responsibility to ensure a balanced tax and tariff structure in the local community in order to maintain the economic balance.

As mentioned earlier the budgets of local authorities already run into considerable amounts— more than R9 000 million. Every local community therefore has a direct interest in the financial affairs of its local authority, and there should thus be professional control over such affairs. To ensure proper control over the finances of local authorities high standards of educational and practical training are necessary. The proposed legislation will result in the maintenance of the highest professional and ethical standards by municipal financial officials in the execution of their duties.

The legislation will apply to all local authorities in South Africa. The definition of “local authority” in the Bill is comprehensive, and various institutions or bodies responsible for matters concerning local government are covered by the legislation.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the establishment of a Board for Municipal Accountants. The authority of the Board is set out in clause 3 and includes two important aspects, namely the regulation of the profession of municipal accountants and the training of municipal accountants.

Clauses 4-8 contain the usual provisions which apply to statutory bodies regarding matters such as term of office of the Board, qualifications for membership and the constitution of committees. Subject to the provisions of any other Act the Board, in terms of clause 9, determines the minimum qualifications required of municipal accountants employed by the various grades of local authority, as well as the minimum qualifications required of a municipal accountant to be employed by a local authority of a certain grade, and the exercising of control over certain prescribed financial activities.

Clause 23 authorises certain local authorities to apply to the Board for total or conditional exemption from these provisions.

In clauses 10 and 21(h) of the Bill provision is made for funds of the Board to defray its administrative expenses.

Clause 13 provides for the registration of a person as a municipal accountant and for his status after such registration. Depending on their qualifications, municipal accountants will be registered in different categories.

In terms of clause 15 no person who is not registered as a municipal accountant shall perform activities as prescribed in the Bill for or in the service of a local authority. Any person in the service of a local authority who performs duties as prescribed in the Bill without being registered as a municipal accountant shall be guilty of an offence. Any person who has been suspended as a municipal accountant or who fails to comply with the codes of conduct of this Bill or its regulations is guilty of improper conduct.

To meet those local authorities that do not have the services of a person qualified for registration with the Board or that cannot afford the services of such a person, exemption may be granted by the Board in terms of clause 23, after consultation with an industrial council for local authorities.

With regard to disciplinary powers, the Board may, in terms of clause 17, inquire into alleged improper conduct on the part of a municipal accountant or, on conviction, impose certain penalties in terms of clause 18.

To refine the general terms of this Bill for the efficient performance of its activities and with a view to prescribing the professional conduct of municipal accountants the Board may in terms of clause 21 make rules not inconsistent with the Bill. Two alternatives for appeal against the decision of the Board were incorporated in the draft Bill. In addition to an appeal to a competent court, as set out in clause 20 of the Bill, a municipal accountant could have appealed to the Minister.

The standing committee rejected this form of appeal. During discussions in the standing committee an amendment to this clause reinstating the alternative appeal to the Minister was proposed. The amendment was, however, rejected.

I am grateful to the standing committee for depoliticising this clause and for vesting the hearing of an appeal in a competent court. The action of the members of the standing committee proves that this legislation cuts over party political boundaries.

I gladly support the amendments by the standing committee which are calculated to depoliticise this legislation. The standing committee quite rightly requires that a report on the activities of the Board should be made to Parliament through the submission of an annual report and financial statements, more so in view of the fact that municipal accountants handle public funds. For that reason the Board is required, in terms of clause 12, to submit a report to the Minister within six months after the financial year-end and that the report be tabled in Parliament as soon as possible.

The only other role to be played by the Minister in terms of the draft Bill shall be to appoint members who have been nominated in terms of clause 4, to have their names published in the Gazette and to fill vacancies in terms of clause 5.

I wish to thank the standing committee for their meaningful and positive contribution in improving this Bill, especially in their efforts to depoliticise the Bill and to lighten the burden of the Minister. This again is proof that the present parliamentary procedure is not only working, but that it is conducive to positive contribution by members, resulting in acceptable legislation.

I also wish to thank the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants and especially Mr Piet Matthee of the Municipality of Johannesburg and Mr Sarel Benade of the Municipality of Kempton Park for their assistance with the draft Bill and for giving evidence before the standing committee.

The establishment of a corps of professional municipal accountants is the object of this Bill. This object has been efficiently achieved.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Planning who dealt with this Bill very extensively. He left no room for the members of the standing committee of this House to say what they want to say; I think he has covered everything that has been discussed in the standing committee.

This is a very important Bill in so far as municipal treasurers and municipal accountants are concerned. It is creating a professional body for municipal accountants and municipal treasurers. As the hon the Deputy Minister rightly pointed out, this Bill came before the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and it was dealt with very thoroughly. We had representatives from the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants giving a proper account of why such an institution has to be created. I also want to thank the law advisers of the department who dealt with this Bill very extensively and very thoroughly.

One of the very important issues that had been discussed was the setting up of this particular institute, the Municipal Accountants Board. One of the important objects of this particular body according to the Bill is that the board may make rules consistent with the Act. This body is also responsible for the control of the income and expenditure of the board, the keeping of accounts in connection therewith, the auditing of accounts, the registers and books to be kept, the investment of funds, the division of profits and the acquisition of property.

One of the issues that was raised before the committee was the necessity for such a body to have investments. It was pointed out that this is a body that has come to stay and that any funds which accrue to the body itself, may be invested in movable or immovable property, therewith creating more investment avenues for the body, as it is a long-term institution.

It is also important to realise that this body will only register those municipal accountants and treasurers who comply with the requirements and write their examinations, qualifying in terms of the rules set out by this particular body.

This body has a code of conduct for municipal accountants and there are also the disciplinary and other powers of the board, such as the opening, maintaining, custody and inspection of registers. Once this legislation is enacted this body, just like any other professional body, will have a register. The name of any accountant who wishes to join a municipality will accordingly be written into the register. The accountant will then have the necessary certificate stating that he is a municipal accountant in terms of this particular institution which has registered him. If there is a vacancy in any municipality, an accountant with this registration certificate will be entitled to join that municipality.

As the hon the Deputy Minister pointed out in his Second Reading speech, this Bill was dealt with very extensively and it leaves no room for any criticism. A wide range of discussions was held at standing committee level. Certain amendments had been proposed, but after careful explanation by the law advisers as well as people who gave evidence, consensus was reached. I feel that the entire House should agree and give approval to this Bill.

Mr Chairman, a very important aspect has already been mentioned this afternoon. With the devolution of power to local level, one namely has to create a machinery whereby this particular key aspect of municipal functions, being financing, will be taken care of with extreme caution. The Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants has so far done a wonderful job concerning the training of members. It is also looking at the interests of the members and is continually monitoring their performance.

One factor which influenced the standing committee to reach consensus, was the recommendation by the permanent finance liaison committee that such a board needs to be established. The co-ordinating council of local government affairs also reached consensus on this legislation. They felt that South Africa should constitute a board of municipal accountants, who will then look at these particular aspects to ensure that the finances of local authorities are run to the advantage of those authorities and of the country itself. From this side of the House we wish not to cast any aspersions on individuals now in office. We believe that they will all agree that municipal finance has to be handled in the manner explained. There will have to be greater caution in future, particularly when hon Ministers have already indicated that over R9 050 million is involved in municipal finance. Thus this measure is in keeping with other recent developments. From this side of the House we therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my hon colleagues in respect of this particular Bill. I have no problem with the intention of this Bill but I want to make a few observations whilst we are discussing this particular measure.

It is apparent to me that opportunities for people of colour to be drawn into the Treasury Department are, in fact, limited and I trust that the board that is being established will address that particular aspect and make it possible for people of colour to become municipal treasurers. In my experience I have found that whenever there is an opportunity for someone to apply for the post of municipal treasurer, one of the questions that is asked of the applicants is: What municipal experience do you have? One finds that people of colour do not have the same amount of experience in municipal service as the Whites have, due to their historical background, the number of years they have been involved in municipal employment and the opportunities that have been presented to them.

Therefore, I should like to say that the board which is to be established must institute programmes to give people of colour an opportunity to enter that particular field. The factor impeding this is the question of a lack of sufficient experience in municipal employment. There are many people of colour who hold qualifications in so far as accountants are concerned. They may be Bachelor of Commerce graduates, for example, but they do not have the opportunity to enter the employ of the municipalities. This is a matter that will have to be addressed.

Whilst I am on this particular subject, and in a lighter vein, I should like to make reference to the provision of clause 6(l)(d). This particular clause makes reference to some of the factors that would disqualify people from membership of the board. No person shall be appointed as a member of the board if he is guilty of certain offences. I should like to take this opportunity to suggest that the provisions of clause 6(l)(d) should also be extended to Parliament and that those persons who are guilty of the offences defined in clause 6(l)(d) should not be permitted to become members of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, as the hon the Deputy Minister explained to the House during his Second Reading speech, this Bill is actually a measure which attempts to regulate a certain discipline in our society, and in that respect one can find little wrong with it. I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Stanger said, viz that there are very few opportunities for people of colour to get work in this particular industry at this stage. I want to request, therefore, the creation of opportunities for the involvement of people of coloured groups in this specific discipline.

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that when one looks at the organisation that deals with chartered accountants today, one will find that numerous people of colour are members of that organisation. This may be an opportunity for me to ask something. I am not asking a White city council simply to appoint a person of colour as chief accountant in that specific town from the word go. It is possible, however, to create opportunities for people of colour within such a department.

I hope that when such officials are appointed to our local authorities in future, we shall consider people as people and appoint them on merit.

There have already been changes in our country’s financial institutions. There was a time when one would walk into a financial institution, including the new First National Bank of Chris Ball fame, even in a town like my home town which is relatively liberal, and see people standing in queues to be served by certain tellers who served only non-Whites and others who served only Whites. One did not see a single person of colour behind the counter. This was true in my time, and I am not very old, just a little grey with all my wisdom. In due course some of our young people who qualified themselves in these fields—some who had only matric or Std 8 certificates—were appointed. Today we are proud to say that there are people of colour serving people at all levels throughout the financial world. There was a sensation when the first Indian was appointed as a broker to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. These are some of the goals we have set ourselves.

At the moment, however, only a few autonomous so-called local authorities have room for the people that this specific Bill provides for. That is difficult, of course. Legislation cannot prescribe who is to be taken into service on the basis of colour. I think all of us, and especially the hon the Deputy Minister and his political associates, must address this matter, however. At present most of the municipalities in the country are controlled by the NP. I do not know what things will be like after October 1988, but until then they will control most municipalities.

I want to appeal to the so-called liberal municipalities of our country too, however. There are the examples of Sandton and Durban’s management committee which are controlled by the PFP and in Johannesburg there is control by independents and the NP. These liberal municipalities do not make provision for appointing expert people of colour either. I want to appeal to local authorities to appoint people merely on the basis of their qualifications and the fact that they have qualified themselves in the sphere of accounting. They must get positions in municipalities so that they can qualify themselves, by means of experience, to be appointed as town treasurers one day.

I conclude by referring to an interesting aspect of the memorandum. It reads, and I quote: “Furthermore, it is their responsibility to ensure a balanced tax and tariff structure in the local community so that the economic balance can be maintained.”

Just in a joke, I want to say that the only thing these rogues do is to impoverish us, because we pay through our necks as far as property rates and other tariffs such as service tariffs are concerned.

If one compares a house of a certain quality on a plot of a certain size in a White area with a similar house and plot in an Indian area, one honestly pays more in property rates in the Indian area. We can talk about that at some other stage, however. We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon member Mr Thaver for his support for the Bill. He sketched the developments in the standing committee and I have nothing more to add to that except to thank him for his support.

The same applies to the hon member for Red Hill. I am pleased to see that we also have bipartisan support for this Bill. I think this Bill is an interesting phenomenon in that any society needs control over various facets of its life and this is an example where such control is left in private hands. It is in fact left in the hands of the people who know best with an absolute minimum of governmental intervention and sharing in the control.

The hon member for Stanger pleaded for opportunities for people other than Whites. I am glad to be able to say that hon members will notice that this Bill is absolutely colour-blind in the sense that there is no differentiation in the registration of members on the roll. There is nothing that approaches differentiation on the basis of colour etc. It is merely a question of qualifications. There is also no limitation for a person of colour to serve as a member of the board.

The hon member pleaded that the same offences be transposed to hon members of Parliament. One can say of course that because treasurers and accountants will work very directly with the money of the public one has to be extra careful in that sense. [Interjections.] It is of course so that the hon members of Parliament are also under the control of their peers and under the control of the newspapers as the hon member mentioned. I therefore think one can afford to be a little more lenient in that respect.

*The hon member Mr Abram also associated himself with the idea of equal opportunities for employment as regards members of the various population groups. This poses no difficulty to me and I am in complete agreement with his appeal. On the other hand it is a fact—this also applies to the comments of the hon member for Stanger— that we should make very sure we appoint people on merit. We should therefore not appoint people of colour merely for the sake of it for instance. We should certainly appoint people on merit, especially in this type of profession. If one were to appoint someone because of the consideration that he was Coloured and matters should go wrong, this would obviously create so many more problems and actually come down to paternalism.

Mr Chairman, would the hon the Deputy Minister accept that a person enrolled as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants had any merit?

Mr Chairman, it is obvious that the Board will list the qualifications required; they will compile a list of qualifications members will have to meet.

†It is not for me to say what the qualifications should be. It will be for this council to decide, as I am not an accountant. It is outside my competence so I cannot comment on the merits of individual qualification in that line. We leave that to the experts. The point is that the qualifications that will be drawn up will be completely colourblind.

*In other words, no distinction will be made. It is a fact—I think the hon member mentioned this— that someone with municipal experience will receive preference. It is obviously in consequence of specific factors that there are fewer people of colour with that type of experience at this stage. There is nothing to prevent people from starting to acquire experience in that field at a lower level, however.

That prompted my question.

I have actually been informed that a Coloured lady is already a subaccountant in Johannesburg. There is also an Indian who is an assistant district surgeon there. In other words, those matters are developing and the opportunity exists for people to acquire experience and apply for positions with that experience.

†There is also a Local Government Training Act which we accepted in 1985 which created a Local Government Board which will assist with training at this level.

*The hon member also referred to the olden days when there were various tellers for people of different colour and I think he agreed and actually explained that South Africa had come a long way since those days and that many such incidents and situations actually no longer occurred or existed.

The private sector is ahead of us.

I should like to differ with you somewhat on the subject of salaries for instance. In many respects the Government is actually ahead of the private sector in that equal salaries are offered for equal work.

†With regard to the question of rates, that is a question that we shall have to address on another day.

*The question of property rates is one that will have to be addressed in other respects but it is true this is a problem that has been raised before and one which will have to be tackled at a certain stage.

†Mr Chairman, with these few words I thank the House for its support for this Bill. I think that this is very good legislation and is a demonstration of a case where the legislation as it comes out of the House is in fact an improvement on the legislation as it was introduced. This is a case where the three Houses of Parliament jointly exerted their influence on the quality of the legislation and came up with very good legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the motion moved by the hon member for Brickfield casts serious reflections on me and I think this motion is based on information which was quoted completely out of context.

The market stallholders were part of the Van Eyssen Committee throughout.

Order! I would request the hon Leader to confine himself strictly to the explanation he sought leave to make without any comment.

The Van Eyssen Committee on the Indian Market in Durban comprised many organisations who proposed different solutions to resolve the resettlement of displaced traders. The then Department of Community Development offered to build shops in Chatsworth but my stand as a representative of the South African Indian Council was that the traders had to be resettled in the city. This stand was pursued and a plan for an oriental plaza was formulated and was subsequently scrapped by the central government. What is unfair is that efforts are now being made in the House of Delegates to place my conduct in a bad light when the market stallholders themselves were participants at all the meetings of the Van Eyssen Committee and were fully aware of all the developments and problems the committee faced in trying to assist the displaced stallholders in finding suitable accommodation which would be acceptable to the stallholders themselves. Therefore the present move was merely designed to embarrass me through the media.

Order! I would like to bring to the attention of hon members that when an opportunity is given to any hon member to read a statement, hon members are requested not to shout “Hear, hear!” or make any other noises. A personal statement is a personal explanation from any hon member, so I am asking hon members, in future, kindly to refrain from that. This privilege is not granted every day, so hon members should kindly adhere to that principle.

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

I also say so!

I am very much aware that because of the unchristian and immoral application of the Group Areas Act as it has affected Indian people particularly, any discussion on this Act quite naturally tends to be charged with considerable emotion. As all hon members will recall, this particular Act has been debated in this House on no fewer than two occasions, apart from having had various references made to it from time to time. In every instance we have seen the kind of emotion that this Act has in fact brought forth from members of this House.

It is our enemy number one!

I am also aware that hon members of this House have in the past described both the principle of forced residential segregation as well as the application of the Act as discriminatory, racist, offensive and exploitative. This House has emphasised that this legislation was specifically directed against the Indian community who perceived the Act as a symbol of their rejection as citizens of this country and, what is worse, as human beings.

I believe that we in this House are all agreed that this Act was responsible for the forced uprooting of many of our people, of legalised robbery of the land of our people, and of the creation of unequal rights for our people, especially in the economic sphere, all of which I believe the Indian community will never forget although they have already forgiven.

We are all agreed that this Act is divisive of the South African community generally and has engendered, and continues to engender, hostility among the various peoples of this fair land of ours.

As I indicated to the hon the Minister who is here in this House this afternoon, I have not come here to debate with him the principles and the application of this Act because we can talk about this until the cows come home.

I would like to pause here for a moment and merely say that what I, and I believe many other hon members, have to say about the Group Areas Act applies equally but perhaps in a larger measure to the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936, and all other related legislation that affects Black people as well.

Therefore, when I plead for Indians I want to state clearly that I plead not only for the Indian community, but for all Black people. I believe that what affects me, also affects my friend John Kuzwayo from Clare wood, or from Isipingo.

What about Mr Hendrickse?

Most certainly it affects Mr Hendrickse, in fact, I believe that at the present time it affects Mr Hendrickse a great deal more than any of the hon members of this House.

I was making the point that we in this House call for the abolition of the Group Areas Act and all other related legislation, not only for the Indian community but for the wider Black community as well. Therefore I want to say that although we in this House do not represent the Black community, at least we can plead for that community in its absence. Many hon members have done so in the past, in particular the hon member for Isipingo.

We have had many discussions of this Act in this Chamber, and as I have already said, everyone in this House at some time or other has spoken up against the this Act and has called for its repeal. Thus in 1985 the hon member Mr Nowbath, who is not in this House this afternoon, moved a similar motion before this House. On that particular occasion there were many hon members of this House who spoke up against the Act. We all know what the views of those hon members are and I trust that those hon members will not bore us again this afternoon by repeating what they had said in 1985, unless they have since changed their views.

The hon member for Rylands in 1986 also moved a similar motion with wider implications. On that occasion too we had many speakers and I trust that they will not again bore us this afternoon, unless, of course, they have since 1986 changed their views. If that is the case I would most certainly like to hear from them.

As I indicated earlier I did not come here merely to debate this issue with the hon the Minister, because I am well aware of the arguments that he will use in support of the retention of the Act. I am aware of the arguments that his party have already put forward for the retention of the Act. I am aware of the hon the State President’s remarks concerning this particular Act when he reacted to the report of the President’s Council last year. These arguments will be nothing new. They have been repeated by the hon the Minister and by the hon State President and, in fact, in the report of the President’s Council which was released last year.

I address my remarks in particular to the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. We have heard in recent times the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council talking about this Act very much like a member of the NP caucus.

Is that for the Press?

If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council hears me out he will not make that remark. All that I was saying, is that in recent times we have heard the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council emphasise more the application of the Group Areas Act, rather than the principles behind the Act. In that respect I was making the point that the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council sounds more and more like a member of the NP.

That is for the newspapers!

I would have thought that the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council would concentrate on the principles of the Act. As the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows he, as well as all the hon members of this House, went to the electorate saying that we stand for the repeal of the Group Areas Act.

We stand for the repeal of the Group Areas Act because we are against the principle involved. Therefore this is an opportunity for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to state unequivocally in this House that he does not support the principles of the Group Areas Act. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council really expects us to believe him, he should support this motion.

I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister who is present, not to talk out the motion that is before us in his reply. I am very much aware that the tradition behind private members’ motions is for the motion to lapse, usually through the Minister concerned speaking at great length on the motion, thereby not putting the motion before the House to the vote. I am very much aware that the hon the Deputy Minister would like us to hear what he has to say in reply. Nevertheless, my appeal still stands.

Why should I call for the repeal of the Act? I would like to state very clearly that it is not only because it has caused untold harm and misery to the Black community in general and in particular to the Indian community; not only because it was unjustly applied against the Indian people; not only because it has caused great hostility within the South African community, but I call for it because I believe that it has failed in its primary object which was sought to be achieved when the Act was first enacted. As I understand it, that was to regulate ownership and occupation of land by the White, Coloured and Indian population groups on a permanent basis. I say that this objective has not been achieved. I say that the Group Areas Act has failed as a false bit of social engineering so that races could be kept apart in South Africa. It has failed because the grand plan of apartheid has failed and we all know that the Group Areas Act was one pillar in that grand plan. The hon the Deputy Minister will admit that apartheid has failed. The hon the State President has already indicated that as well. This grand plan failed because it was built on false premises.

I say this because the grand plan of apartheid, this great edifice of apartheid, was built on several pillars. Noteworthy amongst those pillars were the job reservations legislation, the restrictions that were placed upon the free passage of people between provinces, the restrictions and inequalities based on the identity documents that people carried, etc. We all know that with the passage of time each one of these pillars had to be removed. They had to be removed because economic factors, the rapid urbanisation of this country and the rapid growth in the economy of this country rendered all of these pillars absolutely vulnerable in trying to hold up this grand plan of apartheid.

Therefore, I say this afternoon that like the other pillars of apartheid, this particular pillar of apartheid has failed and must be repealed. What is more, the Government must be the first to admit it. In fact, I would say that in many ways the Government has already admitted it. Just look at the manner in which the Group Areas Act is being applied at the present time. Let us look at the practical situation.

The law exists, certainly, but the de facto position in the country is that the law is not being applied. Firstly, from the time when the Group Areas Act was enacted in 1950 there have been various amendments to the Group Areas Act and the question that arises is: Why the amendments? Those amendments were effected simply because the Government knew that the law could not be applied in its pristine form and so it had to be amended in order to accommodate the changing situation.

One merely has to look at Hillbrow, Mayfair and Durban to see whether the Group Areas Act is, in fact, being applied. I therefore say that quite apart from the legal situation, the practical situation points to the fact that this Act has failed.

One need only look at the accommodation that was made as recently as 1984 insofar as Chinese people were concerned. All of a sudden, Chinese people were removed from the jurisdiction of this particular Act. One could cynically say that perhaps this was also as a result of economic factors such as the growth in the economic relationship between our country and Taiwan, for instance. I see the hon member for Isipingo is shaking his head in full acclamation of that statement. [Interjections.]

Quite apart from that, let us look at what the legal position is insofar as our courts are concerned. The Appellate Division has already made a pronouncement on this particular matter. In 5 v Govender the Appellate Division has clearly laid down a guide-line in regard to this Act when it comes to the ejectment of so-called illegal tenants. The Appellate Division has clearly stated that no one will be ejected or prosecuted unless that person has alternative accommodation. In other words, that must first be proved before an ejectment can be made. As a result of that decision I understand that the Attorneys-General of all the provinces are not, in fact, prosecuting any complaints insofar as transgressions of the Group Areas Act are concerned.

We know that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, which relies in large measure on the Group Areas Act for its implementation, has also gone by the board in practice. As I understand it, and as I understand the remarks of the hon the State President in this connection, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act is on its way out, and legislation is being prepared in that regard. All the indications are that that Act will be repealed, if one understands correctly the spirit of the President’s Council report and the spirit of the remarks made by the hon the State President in regard to that report.

Finally, I should like to ask how we can talk about group areas when today in every White area there are groups of people living, perhaps not in the front, but in little “kayas” in the backyards. These “kayas” are occupied by Black people who are there to cater to the needs of the Whites. In other words, the Group Areas Act is, in fact, being transgressed in so-called White areas.

The question arises why these Black people who live on White land, in many cases in squalor, cannot, if they can afford it, live side by side with the same White people.

I want to say something about the report of the President’s Council’s committee on constitutional matters, which deals with the Group Areas Act. Quite frankly, the report has been a damp squib. It merely reinforced the fears of the ruling party in regard to the Group Areas Act. I believe that it is an attempt to retain the principle of segregation in the face of its continuing erosion in practice. Many of the arguments advanced there have been refuted, I believe, by recent independent research in regard to the Act. For example, the assertion of the committee that desegregation would disturb order in White areas is contradicted by statistics which show that violent crimes rates are higher in White suburbs than they are in illegally mixed ones. Research has been done in this regard by, amongst others, the South African Institute for Race Relations and I shall refer to that presently. The suggestion of the report that mixed settlement would lower property standards is also contradicted by a rise in standards in areas such as Mayfair into which Blacks have moved freely.

I believe the arguments advanced for the retention of the Act, albeit in a changed form, in the report of the committee have been rejected by the entire spectrum of Black opinion and has done little to reduce the tensions between the various communities of this country. In short, I believe that it is an attempt, not to prevent change, but to limit change.

I would like to refer to a speech made by the hon member for Houghton in the House of Assembly when she spoke on the report of the committee. I would like to refer to it, because I believe it makes some very interesting points which we need to canvass in this House as well. She began her speech by quoting from Hansard from the speech of Dr Dönges when he introduced this Act in 1950.

He said on 29 May 1950 in the House of Assembly—hon members can find this in Volume 73 of Hansard—that “one of the main objects of the policy of apartheid, namely the elimination of friction between the races in the Union, by providing separate areas for the different races” would be achieved “without recourse to discrimination between the various races”. He said:

He went on to say:

However, what are the facts? The facts are provided by the President’s Council’s Committee on Constitutional Matters. On p 55 of its report it quite correctly lists statistics which clearly contradict the assertion made by Dr Dönges when the Act was introduced. In table 4.1 of the report, which lists resettlements from 1950 to 31 August 1984, the following is printed: “Families resettled”.

Now, we all know that “resettlement” is a euphemism for families being disrupted. This table shows quite clearly that in the period from 1950 to 31 August 1984, a total of 126 176 families in South Africa were disrupted. Of this figure only 1,9% were White, 66% were Coloured and 31,75% were Indian. Insofar as families eligible for resettlement were concerned, a total of 6 414 families were eligible. Of these only 4,2% represented Whites, 59,2% Coloureds and 36,89% Indians.

Interesting figures are also given for the number of business premises that were removed in terms of the Act. The figures show that a total of 2 771 business premises were removed of which 1,95% were White, 6,75% Coloured and a very high 91,3% were Indian.

I quote these figures to prove that it is a myth to say that the application of the Act is done on a fair basis. It contradicts what was said by the then Minister of Home Affairs that there would not be discrimination between the various races.

I also want to refer to another point that was made in this report in chapter five. I quote from page 71:

What is really being said here is that people throughout the world have a tendency to stick together. This is a paraphrase of the idiom “birds of a feather flock together". The question that arises, if that is the tendency throughout the world, why do we have to legislate for it? That is the point. It is a pity that this particular point made by the committee was not highlighted by the Government.

[Inaudible.]

I did not hear the hon member for North Coast. Was he addressing me? [Interjections.]

I would again like to refer to some of the myths but before I do so I would like to give the opportunity to hon members on the other side of the House to tell us whether they agree with the motion before the House or not. I could then perhaps also answer some of the submissions made by those hon members.

Mr Chairman, we have just heard the hon member for Springfield giving us a whole thesis on the Group Areas Act. We know that the Group Areas Act has disrupted community life for the past 40 years. We also know that the Government has said that it is against apartheid, that apartheid no longer exists and that apartheid does not play an important part in Government policies anymore.

Yet it insists that the Group Areas Act must remain on the Statute Book.

We know that the hon member for Springfield said that it is one of the pillars of apartheid and that it is the Group Areas Act which determines where people may live according to the colour of their skin. Although the President’s Council report has recommended that certain changes be made to the Act to allow for open or grey areas we are still waiting for a proper response—that is the repealing of this Act—from the hon the State President as far as the Government is concerned.

We see that some of the proposals of the President’s Council have come from certain sectors and it says that it is a giant step forward, but it will probably not do much more than legalise the grey areas that already exist and prolong the tortuous process of real reform. To do away with apartheid it is necessary to do away with the Group Areas Act and I say to do away with it in its entirety. We in Parliament are supposed to be in key positions to influence the cause of reform in South Africa and I want to pledge my and my party’s support for fighting for social justice. We pledge to bring this about during this session of Parliament.

This cruel law has haunted the lives of many of us for many years. It prevents the majority of our citizens from exercising the democratic right as human beings to stay where they choose. The Group Areas Act has been the single greatest cause of untold human misery since the NP came into power and I am quoting from a report in the February issue of Readers’ Digest which has analysed extensively the Group Areas Act and has made quite a few recommendations for scrapping it.

Two years ago the Government declared that apartheid was dead. Since then there have been moves away from institutionalised discrimination such as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the legislation on influx control and the pass laws have fallen away. There is no denying that there are major changes in that field yet the Government still insists on separating residential areas along racial lines. Very significant is that of those uprooted by this Act 98% have been non-Whites. Examples are areas such as Sophiatown, Page-view and Vrededorp in the Transvaal. Then we come to District Six and we know the misery that that caused the people. I appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister as he is the person who sends many of his overseas visitors to us. They then discuss the Group Areas Act with us and what do we tell them? We tell them that there are recommendations from the President’s Council yet we cannot implement them.

I want to come back to District Six. As recently as Friday last week no other than the President of the Islamic Council of South Africa mentioned during his Friday sermon that there is a change with regard to participation in South African politics. I therefore appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister today: Give people like that who have always been critical of the House of Delegates a chance by telling them now that we have repealed the Group Areas Act.

I am not going to talk about what this Act has done to our people as this has already been discussed by the hon member for Springfield. However, much publicity was also given to this Act by many members of the Cabinet, by Ministers such as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has told the international Press that the CBD’s are now open and that there is going to be free trade in South Africa.

What has opened up?

Only parts of the CBD.

That is my question. What has opened up? I take the example of Pretoria, a capital city of our country. No CBD has been opened there. I am not pleading for the opening of CBDs. I agree with the recommendations of the President’s Council that all business areas be opened to all. Taking it as an example, this much-publicised opening of CBDs is a non-event. Nowhere in this country have the CBDs been opened to the satisfaction of the local people. In the little country towns—take the Transvaal platteland, take every country town— they have taken a block in one corner of the town and said this is going to be the CBD.

Shame!

I am not contradicting myself by saying that the Government should open all CBDs. I say remove all sections of the Act that impede the growth of businesses in this country.

We know the President’s Council report was precise when it said that all business sections should be opened. However, up till now we have seen no steps forward in this form of reform.

What also hurts us in the present form of the Act, if we are not going to have it repealed completely—we on this side of the House feel it should be repealed completely—is the hardship that we suffer in the identification of land in the urban areas. We are still forced to use those sections of the Act because it is still part of the statute. That is why I am going to analyse how this particular section regarding the identification of land is hurting the very lives of the people in the urban areas. I can give you as an example what has happened on the East Rand and in Pretoria. There is nowhere to expand, and I think the hon the Deputy Minister is well aware of this.

The issuing of permits is another form of hardship. The Government has now devolved that to the provincial councils. What does the provincial council say when you apply for a permit? That the applicant has to prove hardship and then only will such a permit be granted.

That allegation should be withdrawn.

I definitely agree with the hon member Mr Abram’s interjection that the whole question of permits should be withdrawn completely and that people should be allowed to trade where they like. There has been a typical example of this in Pretoria and I think the hon the Deputy Minister should be informed. In one of the buildings in Beatrix Street in the centre of Pretoria the first floor is used by an escort agency which naturally has a mixed clientele. On the second floor of this building there is a person who has opened a training school for hairdressers. He was warned by members of the department on group areas that he needs a permit because he is training people of colour.

Shame!

He is a White owner. He himself went and applied for such a permit. And what was he told? That he had to prove hardship if that particular facility were to be closed.

He was training people of colour to come back into commerce. What could he prove?

Hardship.

He tried to prove hardship but he could not and eventually his request for a permit was refused.

I warned the escort agency.

The escort agency is trading legally as the hon member Mr Abram well knows.

This is the kind of hardship caused by the Group Areas Act and as long as this Act remains on the Statute Book our people will not rest. I am not going to quote from the article that appeared in the Readers’ Digest because I think it has been circulated to all hon members and everyone is aware of it. I see a lot of copies in this House this afternoon and everyone wants to quote from them. With these few words I still believe there should be a total repeal of the Group Areas Act.

Mr Chairman, the demarcation of grey areas and so-called local options are no solution to the problems caused by the Group Areas Act. Let us get our thinking on this matter clear.

I do not blame the hon member for Laudium for expressing fears and anxiety about the question of grey areas.

As long as different groups are racially segregated in terms of a law imposed by one race group upon other race groups, there will be racial strife. There will always be differences of opinion, dissatisfaction and dissension.

I hear that there are attempts to overcome this problem as to who is going to allocate to whom; to shift the responsibility of administrating the Group Areas Act to the various race groups. In this regard I want to warn, betimes, the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council against falling foul of any such attempt. It will be disastrous. Lest they be cajoled into it, I want to remind them that the Group Areas Act is the bedrock of apartheid. The repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Prohibition of Political Interference Act are meaningless if the Group Areas Act is to be retained.

As long as there are separate group areas, there will be separate amenities and separate services. The duplication and quadruplication of services are not in the interests of the taxpayer. I want to emphasise this fact with all the force at my command. All reasonable and thinking people would accept this fact.

All vestiges of the Group Areas Act and related legislation must be eradicated in order that the South African nation—White, Black and Brown—can breathe afresh as true South Africans.

There is no such thing as an unsolvable problem, provided that we face it wisely and courageously. The group areas design is no solution to the problems plaguing this beautiful land. We cannot and must not build walls around ourselves and hide our heads in the sand; on the contrary, we must go forward with all our strength to strive for lasting peace in this land. The group area ideology clearly stands in the way of the effective completion of the move towards a new sociopolitical and economic dispensation.

South Africa certainly does not need the Group Areas Act. However, South Africa sorely needs the opportunity for civilising influences to permeate the people of South Africa, and a civilised way of life towards a better and happy nation. That will come once the Group Areas Act is removed. We will be able to reduce to a large extent all this strife that is going on. Let us not try to talk ourselves out of it.

We will be able to remove all the agitation of foreign countries against the laws of this country. I can assure hon members that India would probably withdraw its sanctions and renew its diplomatic relations with this country, because it was due to this Group Areas Act, more than anything else, that India and Pakistan had imposed sanctions against South Africa.

As a first step in that direction the Group Areas Act must be removed from the Statute Book.

Improved housing, education and economics will not be satisfying as long as there are laws hurting human dignity. As the hon member for Springfield indicated, legislation is not acceptable when it comes to things like this. The Group Areas Act, No 36 of 1966, first passed in 1950, is an unjust, immoral and dastardly piece of legislation. It is based on racial discrimination and is indeed a cruel, sinful Act. No amount of defence can defend the defenceless. This is the point I wish to make. I quote from The Post dated 26 September 1987:

According to a report of the Institute of Race Relations enforcement of this Act has worsened the growing housing shortage, because many areas which previously housed Coloured and Indian people were demolished and the housing shortage rocketed. What happened as a result of all the industrial areas falling within White areas? There was hardly any opportunity for Indian entrepreneurs to acquire properties for industrial purposes. They were denied this for decades, until 1966. Then there was some hope of Indians acquiring industrial properties as well as properties in their own areas.

That was also given very begrudgingly.

Quite right. Residential separation was the basis and the Group Areas Act was the key to economic strangulation, inferior education and separation of amenities. We do not want this to continue. Let us look at the unfair and untenable situation that obtains in the Indian community today. The price of land and houses is invariably 50—100% in excess of the price paid by our White counterparts. All things being equal, in some cases it is 300% or even 400%. I can prove it. In Chatsworth a half a plot of land is being sold for R40 000, whereas in Queensburgh it is R15 000. In Grey Street the Whites are paying half as much rates as the Indians.

Not half, quarter!

In recent years the Durban City Council has given them concessions. This is the sin of the Group Areas Act. From 1920 onwards thousands of acres outside the city of Durban have been taken away from the Indian community and modern townships have been created for Whites. These lands had been occupied by Indians for many decades, but they were uprooted to make way for these townships.

The tragedy of Cato Manor could never be omitted when the Group Areas Act is discussed. It will for ever remain a black chapter in the history of South Africa. It was once largely occupied by Indians, but that did not fit in with the grand plan of removing dark-skinned people to the outskirts of urban areas. Yet there were Whites pleading that the Indians must not be moved out.

They said there were far better areas within the Durban complex that were available for White settlement and that Whites would not take up residence in Cato Manor. For instance, an excouncillor, Mr Carte, made certain bold statements about it and his words became prophetic because until “yesterday” this land was not taken up by Whites, and what a tragedy Cato Manor still is.

I want to read from an article that was published on the eve of Christmas, appealing to White consciences throughout the country. It reads as follows:

I shall quote just one paragraph:

The younger generation would not know the devastation, the sin, the cruelty, the punishment, the hurt and the deaths that were caused when people were moved out in their thousands from one area to another. [Interjections.] I quote from the article again:

The general welfare of the country. That is true because every civilised nation in the world condemns South Africa for this diabolical, obnoxious Act. [Interjections.] I quote further:

Today we ought to repeat our appeal to the White Christian conscience to abolish this Act. [Interjections.]

Forty thousand Indians have been removed from Cato Manor. I do not want to quote too many facts, but the market value of Indian-owned properties was of the order of R19 million and I believe the owners were paid about half that amount. They were paid an amount of R10 million. The value they were given was not a fair one. [Interjections.] I do not want to go into the facts given by my other hon colleagues. However, against this background we expect the representative of the House of Delegates in the Cabinet, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, to champion the cause for the repeal of the Group Areas Act in toto.

He is not here.

I am sorry he is not here. [Interjections.] In no way can a sinful Act be defended. However, I do not want to make certain statements here. I want to reserve those statements because the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not here. [Interjections.] However, I want to read the following quotation:

It continues as follows:

[Interjections.]

This is astounding. Is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council so ignorant of the categorical standpoint of the Indian community on the Group Areas Act? Has he not taken a definite stand on this crucial issue?

I wish to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—and he must tell us later on during the course of this debate—whether he is hobnobbing with the protagonists of separation, with those who favour the Group Areas Act and who want to retain the Act with a few cosmetic insets, if I may call them that? We support own affairs only to the extent that they afford us an opportunity to dismantle apartheid. We do not want own affairs for their own sake. [Interjections.] We only want own affairs so that they may give us a forum in which to tear down all these unjust laws.

In the same article the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is reported to have said that the salvation of the Indian people lay in the protection of group rights. Aha! Someone is echoing someone else’s sentiments here. [Interjections.] What is the truth?

The truth is that under the Group Areas Act the Indian community has been subjected, as my hon friend said, to legalised robbery and inhuman suffering. Does the hon the Minister of Housing agree that the massive backlog in housing among the people of colour in South Africa has been caused and aggravated largely by the Group Areas Act?

In The Star of 11 September 1987 the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is reported as saying that the Group Areas Act is not negotiable and also that the Government’s policy is aimed at democracy and at the maintenance of the free market system. How can one reconcile the Group Areas Act with democracy? Democracy is government of the people by the people for the people. Is the Group Areas Act something which is formulated, legislated and enacted by the people, for the people?

It is clear that people cannot be divided into watertight economic compartments based on racial lines. Residential segregation hinders economic growth. I admire the hon the State President, because he is all for supporting private enterprise. However, I cannot see how he will marry the Group Areas Act and private enterprise. I have my fears. It has various impediments.

The reaction of the hon the State President to the report of the President’s Council on the Group Areas Act, is understandable, since the Conservative Party is the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. It is a pity that legislation should be directed in a certain way because of fear. Anything done out of fear is not good. This fear was also evident earlier, in February 1987, when it was disclosed that the Government would delay the President’s Council’s report on the Group Areas Act until after the election. This is a fact.

The editorial viewpoint in the Natal Post of 7 October 1987 sums up the situation, and I quote:

The editorial of The Daily News of 30 March 1987 lays bare the truth about the problem of the Group Areas Act. I quote:

This is the crux of the matter. Even the moderate Black leader, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, reacted negatively to the report on the Group Areas Act. He said that there could be no prospect of Blacks and Whites sharing political parties while the Group Areas Act remained in force.

I want to pose the question: After all, why must anyone differentiate among true South Africans? Who should differentiate? Why should there be this differentiation? Why should it be based on the superficial colour of the skin? There is such a thing as natural affinity. Someone spoke about situations prevailing in other parts of the world. Natural affinity of religion, culture and race will always prevail. People of one race, one colour and one religion have always grouped in certain areas. Therefore it is not difficult to visualise, taking into account human experience all over the world, that people of one race, one colour and one religion will always group in certain areas.

I pity, from the bottom of my heart, legislators who want to take mean advantage of legislation, knowing full well that they are going to administer the legislation. I want to sound a word of warning here. There is no place for the Group Areas Act in an enlightened South Africa. The younger generation of the White population, if nobody else, will not defend such a diabolical law.

Mr Chairman, before I deal with the motion I wish to extend the condolences of this side of the House to the families of the 19 victims who lost their lives in the bomb explosion in the First National Bank at Oshakati in South West Africa last Friday. It is our prayers that those responsible for it will find other means towards achieving their goals rather than by using methods that result in the loss of so many lives.

To come back to the motion, I am sure that the Group Areas Act has been discussed and debated in every forum. I will always remember with what feeling and intensity the hon member for Actonville discussed the Group Areas Act in the Indian Council.

One of the most offensive and grievous pieces of legislation to desecrate the pages of our Statute Book is the Group Areas Act. This has been echoed throughout the length and breadth of our country, particularly in the non-White communities. It has caused immense hardship, suffering and pain to an untold number of unfortunate people in South Africa and notably the Indian community. They have been uprooted from settled and developed areas where they resided in peace, harmony and security over many years. Most came to the country as labourers with few or no possessions. They allowed themselves and their families to take root here while retaining their own languages and cultural heritage. They settled here with their humble resources and yet they were subjected to this obnoxious Group Areas Act.

They had unwavering aspirations in all fields and throughout their hard work and perseverance they set out to accomplish their aims and uplift themselves. In their efforts many of them became casualties in the onslaught of the inequitable Group Areas Act. Their progress and development were stilted and their properties were subjected to expropriation, basic values and trifling prices. This struck a devastating blow to the inherent communal system and it split families, friends and relatives.

Their removals for resettlement were firstly to subeconomic housing schemes far removed from their places of employment, thus hampering them with an additional burden of transportation costs which constitute a considerable strain on their income. Secondly, they were moved to the so-called “self-help schemes” in remote localities. This was also of economic disadvantage to them.

Nowhere else in the world is the constraint of individual choice enshrined in a Statute Book. Elsewhere in the world where particular race groups form communities in particular settlements they do so from their own choice, circumscribed perhaps by their own economic limitations.

Reform in South Africa has made many commendable advances. While I favour moves aimed at peacefully dismantling the prevailing legislation which are discriminatory on the grounds of race, I submit that this should be done in a positive and an irreversible manner. While it must be acknowledged that there is some merit in allowing groups to decide whether or not they wish to open their residential areas, it is my respectful submission that meaningful reform would be best served if no further group areas were ever allowed to be created.

The history of the Afrikaners is a history of a people’s struggle to free themselves from government interference in their lives so that they might live according to their own values. However, this inherent faith in individualism and the pursuit of freedom has been largely forgotten since D F Malan piloted the Group Areas Act through Parliament in 1950.

Whatever this Act was intended for, it happened that approximately 98% of the victims of the Group Areas Act have been non-Whites. Therefore one can visualize the effect that this particular Act has had.

Now let me cite certain instances in Natal. Recently in 1969 the Government took a decision to move the Indian community from the North Bank to the South Bank of the Tugela River as a result of the Group Areas Act.

Mr Chairman, I would like to know from the hon the Minister whether it is only the Indian population which is suffering under this vile law, the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.]

When we stand here we are echoing the feelings of every person irrespective of their colour, cast or creed who have been affected by this Act.

We must therefore, visualize the traumatic experiences of people who have gone through this. The Group Areas Act even states that certain areas must be reserved for particular groups. The British rule in 1911 introduced job reservation which was implemented for the purpose of protecting certain privileged groups. As a result of this Act in certain areas in the Natal region where there is a concentration of Indian communities who have to make a living, they were debarred from employment even to this day.

This Act, although it has been reversed, is still instilled in the minds of many of those employees. One can understand from that the hardships that our people have been subjected to.

Mr Gavin Relly, the chairman of Anglo American, said that South Africa can ill afford the Group Areas Act, and indeed it is a constraining factor with regard to the industrialisation process which is vital to the economy of South Africa. As the hon member for Springfield has said, all the reaction with regard to the Group Areas Act is indeed a symbol of reaction which naturally interferes with the dignity of people, and apart from this dignity, the stability and security of people.

More than anything else, the hon member for Cavendish said that we are looking towards a lasting peace and therefore this forum—as the hon member for Laudium mentioned—has to influence a new direction and in influencing a new direction one must understand to what extent we are going to politicise this exercise because it affects the inner core of our survival.

I therefore want to say in all humility and sincerity that this legislation—the Group Areas Act— for whatever reason it was intended has served its purpose. In this period of reform and transition when the world has its attention focused on South Africa this obnoxious Act must be removed forthwith and we should look at a new South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in the limited time at my disposal I will just touch on some salient features of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

Of all the apartheid legislation the Group Areas Act has caused the most embitterment and estrangement between population groups of this our beloved country. No other Act has caused so much embitterment and hatred. One commission of inquiry after another appointed by the Government has shown that discriminatory laws such as, inter alia, the Group Areas Act are the major causes of riots and disturbances in the country. Prior to 1948 we did not have riots or disturbances in this country. We had peaceful, political demonstrations. However, the present situation can be directly linked to the build up, year after year, of frustration. I am not saying this. Several commissions of inquiry set up by the Government have established that the Group Areas Act is a major cause of frustration and dissatisfaction that have led to riots and disturbances. I firmly believe that as long as this pernicious Act—which has been described by several hon members in different debates here on the Group Areas Act as vile, filthy, stinking and, some even said, meretricious—remains, it will continue to subscribe to the bad relationship among the various population groups of this country.

The Group Areas Act did not simply appear out of the blue. It is an Act that has evolved over many, many decades. Formal policies of segregation began to be developed before the turn of the century, in the last decade of the nineteenth century. That was the development of Theophilus Shepstone’s togt or day labour systems in Natal. The legal segregation of Blacks was accomplished in the first three decades of the twentieth century. That is the root of the Group Areas Act of 1950. It is the culmination of this segregation which has evolved, year after year, based on nothing but racial prejudice, jealousy and envy. I could prove some of this if I had more time. I shall leave it at that point.

The segregation of Blacks was accomplished when the Native Land Act, Act 27 of 1913, was enacted. This effectively segregated Blacks from Whites, and created the present reserves, more particularly in Natal, for Blacks.

This Act was followed by the Native Urban Areas Act, Act 20 of 1923, which created fragmented housing problems for Blacks within the White cities. As a consequence of this today we find the fragmented homelands such as KwaZulu. If you go to Natal you will find KwaZulu after every 4 kilometres. For example, in the area that I come from, within Camperdown, you will find KwaZulu at Hammersdale, and as the crow flies for 4 kilometres it is greater South Africa, and then KwaZulu starts again after the Umgeni River.

This is a result of the segregation that was implemented. [Interjection.] This segregation is only one aspect of the system of social segregation which eventually, under the guise of the Group Areas Act, has permeated every sphere of our social life—business, housing, recreation, sport and schools. All these are affected by this one pernicious enactment. The intention of this Act was to segregate in order to protect the residential rights of the poor Whites. That was the main peg on which the Ministers hung their motivations. However, although it started out with the intention of achieving residential segregation, this Act extended to business as well.

The economy of the country was hit by this, and the Government has overlooked the fact that Government itself has been hit by the Group Areas Act, and hit very heavily. If one were to sit down and work out what the administration of this Act has cost over the last 40 years, it would run into billions of rand.

One of the results of this Act is that billions are being wasted on agricultural structures. It is an Act that totally bars people who are non-Whites from participating in the agricultural industry. Since 1950 the Government has been spending billions in this regard.

The Group Areas Act has also led to impoverishment and deterioration in relations between South Africans and the rest of the world. For the sake of justice and sound intergroup relations I support the motion before this House and call upon the Government to repeal the Group Areas Act.

Mr Chairman, I want to adhere to the plea of the hon member who moved the motion. He said that this motion should not be talked out and disallowed. Therefore I do not wish to speak at too great length.

Mr Chairman, the NP came into the driving seat of the South African political arena in 1948. Two years later, in 1950, this very notorious Group Areas Act—that is its present name—saw the light of day. Before that, the previous Government, ie the United Party Government under the leadership of Gen Smuts, had passed many different types of laws to curtail the activities of the Indian community.

This Group Areas Act was directed particularly at curtailing the activities of the Indian community. Unfortunately, the other innocent nonWhite groups have fallen prey to this Act. It was actually aimed at the Indian community.

To destroy us.

The Indian community came to South Africa for the betterment of South Africa. The ship Truro arrived in 1884 on the shores of Africa with indent labourers to save …

In 1882!

I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I accept my learned friend’s correction—it was 1882.

The Truro arrived on the shores of South Africa to save the deteriorating sugar crop in South Africa. That was followed by businessmen who came to give service to South Africa. At the risk of their lives and properties, they established themselves in remote areas, from where they brought merchandise to the doors of the White residents in various areas.

The town came to the Indian community; the Indian community did not go to the town. When they were enveloped within the sphere of the town, they became parasites in the eyes of the Whites.

At this specific stage I want to mention one case which is of a unique nature and still exists in Germiston—a place called Primrose. It is a suburb of Germiston.

The family of the late Adam Kara lives there and he established himself there when the area was still a jungle. His house was built in 1889 and he used to be of great service to his community. They would knock on his door at all hours, requesting help for items like a bottle of white dulcis or red lavender. Adam Kara was always prepared to assist. Today that area has developed into a CBD and Mr Adam Kara’s shop, which his grandchildren are now running, is situated a number of metres away from the pavement. The family are unable to extend the shop because the Group Areas Act prohibits them from bringing the shop-front in line with the others. At present they find themselves in a so-called White area. The present situation upsets the whole look of the CBD with that one shop being out of line with the rest.

There was a chemist in Germiston called Hoffbank’s, which a number of years ago celebrated its fiftieth birthday. The Germiston City Council paid great tribute to its 50 years of success and for its business enterprise. However, the Indian community had been giving service to the community for over a hundred years, living like parasites in the old Asiatic Bazaar in Germiston where conditions were atrocious. I told the authorities that if they moved these people, who had become so accustomed and immune to their surroundings, to any area which is an improvement of their present conditions, they would either get sick or die. I can tell hon members that they have now been moved to Palm Ridge and they are very unhappy.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member, in the light of the fact that these people were supposed to have become so immune, if he can tell us how many cases of sickness and death were recorded since their move to Palm Ridge.

Mr Chairman, I do not know the exact figure but I do know that a lot of people are ill. They also do not have a cemetery in Palm Ridge.

The House of Delegates will provide one within six months.

After their arrival in South Africa, the first law to be promulgated in connection with the Indian community was one to restrict their movements between the provinces of the country. It just goes to show that the Indian community has always been the target since way back. Notwithstanding all the odds against it, this community has kept its head above water and survived. Therefore in 1961 there was no other way out for the Government but to state that the Indian community should now be accepted as an integral part of the South African society. Repatriation had failed. They could not be induced with money to leave this country. The Indian community is like a leech: Once it gets in, it never gets out again. That is how it makes its home. Those who came to South Africa, did so to make a home for themselves in this country. Therefore we are true South Africans. Sometimes we are referred to as Indians, but we are not—we are South Africans.

We talk of reform in South Africa. We say we have removed certain offending Acts from our Statute Books, such as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, and we want to boast to the outside world that we are implementing reforms. However, what is this reform doing to us? If a White man marries a woman of colour, he has difficulties. Where, then, does the reform come in? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Laudium referred to an article in the Reader’s Digest. I should like to read something very interesting to hon members from p 52 of that publication:

Inhuman!

I quote further:

[Interjections.]

When one looks at the implementation of the Group Areas Act one finds that they had to bring in dogs to move people from Pageview in order to implement the Group Areas Act.

They used what?

Dogs! They used dogs to get the people out of Pageview. [Interjections.] Human beings could not get the Indian community out and so they had to bring in dogs to get the Indian community out of Pageview under the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] This is the plight of the Indian community.

More than one million families have been uprooted as a result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. When the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act was repealed the White community thought the sky was about to fall. Something impossible was about to happen. However, what did happen? To this day, how many people have married across the colour line? How many? [Interjections.] What has happened? If the Group Areas Act were removed, what would happen? Would South Africa come to an end? I for one would not like to go and live in an area which is foreign to my lifestyle. I would like to live in an area among my own people, where I have my mosque and my vernacular classes and where I can attend to my people …

But not forced by legislation.

…but I must not be forced to do so by legislation. This is the irony of the whole situation.

Adjoining Benoni we have an area called Brakpan. Brakpan has always been known as the Free State of the Transvaal because the Indian community has never been allowed to set foot in the Free State since the days of President Paul Kruger. Today we have more than 91 families in the Free State, and they are rendering good service to the community of the Free State. [Interjections.]

The Brakpan area, which adjoins Benoni comprises certain land which now belongs to Brakpan municipality. However, it did not belong to Brakpan municipality previously. When the Indian community asked for that land, the Brakpan municipality jumped in and purchased it and said that they had no place for the Indian community within their jurisdiction. That land which was purchased by the Brakpan municipality has never been occupied. It is still lying vacant. When the Indian community asked for it, I personally went to see the hon the Minister. The reply I received from the Minister was the following: “I have already made up my mind. This area is for the White community”. However, Mr Chairman, the White community is not going to use it for the next 50 years. [Interjections.] Next to it is a little piece of land surrounded by slime dams and they say the Indian community can have this because an HNP member wants to transfer that land as the White community does not want it.

This is the plight of the Indian community in terms of the Groups Areas Act. This Act has caused misery for the people of South Africa. No measure of reform can bring about an improvement in the Group Areas Act. The Group Areas Act must go in toto. Until the Group Areas Act goes, apartheid has not died in South Africa.

I have to see many foreigners who come to this country. Many interviews are arranged. I am meeting some people from Europe next week. The first thing they always ask about is group areas. What must we say? As long as group areas remain in South Africa, apartheid is alive. Apartheid will only go when the Group Areas Act goes.

Mr Chairman, people speak of group areas. I was born in a group area. I do not understand when people speak of group areas, because I have my own little area. However, when I visited the Eastern Transvaal during the by-election, I saw what the Government and the National Party did with the Indian community in terms of the obnoxious Group Areas Act and it saddened me. It saddened me to see how our people had been treated. Our people have been living in conditions …

In cages!

Cages are even better. They have been living in terrible conditions. The obnoxious Group Areas Act put our people in misery. I used to hear what the Group Areas Act has done to people. I have heard talk of people committing suicide because of this obnoxious Act. It destroyed our community. The forced removal of Blacks into townships has resulted in the revolution being at our doorstep today. The stupidity of the National Party and this Government is creating revolution, warfare and guerilla fighting in this country. Before the National Party came into power, this was a peaceful country and there was no trouble besides the Second World War. When the National Party came into power, it created misery and confusion and caused more people to pick up arms. What happened the other day in South West Africa will happen in Durban, in Cape Town, in Bloemfontein, and everywhere. The government of the day is responsible for the state of the country. It is not the people; it is the Government, the 166 members sitting in the House of Assembly. Today we have the opportunity to undo the wrongs.

I must congratulate the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives. When the NP asked for an extension of its election until 1992, he took a strong stand and he must be congratulated for that. I feel that this House should take the same stand against the Government. The Group Areas Act and the frustration caused by it has been spoken of here time and again. To avoid what is happening in other parts of the country and in Africa this Government must wake up and treat human beings like human beings, not like dogs. If the Government does not wake up, the revolution will be on our doorstep.

Mr Chairman, a great deal has been said about this Act from time to time but I would like to refresh the memories of hon members of this House as well as the hon the Deputy Minister who I take it was a youngster just as myself when the Group Areas Act was first brought on the Statute Book. I would like to quote the speech of the then hon Minister of the Interior when he introduced the Second Reading debate of the Group Areas Bill in Parliament in 1950. I quote from Hansard, 29 May 1950, col 7638 of the Afrikaans version. He said the following:

What he said was that the overriding principle of this Bill was to make provision for the establishment of groups areas, that is, separate areas for the different racial groups, even if this had to be done under force. This was the introductory speech of the then Minister of the Interior in the second reading of the Group Areas Bill.

No NP politician can convince me today that the intentions behind the creation of the Group Areas Act were noble intentions. That would be a nonsensical statement. We must be big enough to accept that at that time the leaders of the country, who ever they were, were motivated only by White greed and White prejudice. The whole intention behind the Act was to create detrimental legislation for people of colour and not legislation to their advantage.

I am very proud that the hon member for Benoni at that time, the late Mr L Lovell, had the following to say, and what he said at that time has been borne out by what has happened in the 38 years that this obnoxious legislation has been on the Statute Book of our country. What he said at the time is very relevant to the debate today. I quote from the Afrikaans Hansard, 29 May 1950, col 7709:

What he said at that time is very relevant today. He continued to say the following and I quote from the same speech:

I want to say that 38 years later the words of the late Mr L Lovell are very relevant today. What is happening in South Africa today? Where does the real danger lie? What are our real enemies? Through the Group Areas Act we have created our real enemies eg our slum areas such as Crossroads. Further Crossroads are still being created all over the country. When one travels a lot as I do, one can see what is happening all over the country. I want to make it very clear that there is no way that we can believe that there were any noble intentions behind the placing of the Group Areas Act on the Statute Book.

I am not going to talk about District Six now—I may come back to that later. I want to talk of good old Sophiatown in Johannesburg. Here one had a mixed community without any of the racial tensions and problems which existed in the minds of the NP politicians of 1948. However, at the stroke of a pen a vibrant integrated community was destroyed. What did the White man then do? He created a White township called “Triomf”. It means that it was a triumph for White prejudice. [Interjections.]

“Triomf” is also the name of a fertilizer.

Yes, but that “Triomf” fertilizer died off.

The greed of the White man persisted in the leaders of the time. Sophiatown was replaced by that Triomf and I think that that very same Triomf will still be the downfall of politicians who think like that in this country.

The Black people who were living in Sophiatown had to leave and go to Soweto and other places. The Coloured people had to move out of there. One had a beautiful township there. Some of the houses were taken over by White people who are living in them today. Albertsville is an example. I knew it well as I had a girl friend there! Those people also had to move out of there! [Interjections.]

Let us take District Six. The Government will argue that District Six was a slum. Yes, over 90% of the properties in District Six did not belong to the Coloured people. Although the properties may not have belonged to the Coloured people, in spirit District Six belonged to them. District Six was theirs. If the White man had been concerned about changing conditions in District Six for the better what he would have done is to introduce an urban renewal programme. What has happened ever since? The tears of the people of District Six are still being shed in these wastelands that one sees right across the road from here today.

What happened to the people of District Six? They were spread all around the wastelands of the Cape Flats and the net result was that out of those decent, law-abiding people that were living in District Six—we as youngsters used to visit District Six, we know that they were decent people—one has a crime rate which I believe is the highest in the country. What created it? The Group Areas Act did because people were herded into those places.

One can take a man and a family physically from point A and place them in point B, but one cannot place them there spiritually. One cannot place them there morally, and those were the things lacking in the application of this law. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I have nothing against him as a human being. I have the highest regard for him. However, I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the manner in which the Group Areas Act is implemented at present by his department leaves very much to be desired. If a person of colour who happens to be an MP goes with proposals to his department that department sits with those proposals for 2½ years and one gets no results whatsoever. However, let an MP who wants to look after the interests of his estate agent friends and supporters and of some of the people who may be voting for him, go to that department with proposals, the department acts upon them immediately. I will show the hon the Deputy Minister living proof of what I am talking about.

This law has not only had these disastrous effects on our people, it is being used today as an instrument for the enrichment of certain people, for the benefit of certain people who happen to be the favoured one’s of the Government. This is done at the expense of the community at large.

I therefore want to come out squarely on the side of those who believe this law should go. I want to tell hon members that even if this law is gone people will naturally tend to gravitate towards one another on the basis of the age old adage which the Afrikaans people invented, “soort soek soort”.

Freedom of association.

If there is freedom of association I shall go and associate with people of my kind.

I also want to refer to some hon members of the NP who are sitting in this House and in Parliament today who used the Group Areas Act in their election campaigns in 1987, and here I want to refer in particular to the hon member for Durban Point. It is a pity that he is not around here.

The hon member for Durban Point made racist statements. He called upon voters in that area who find non-Whites moving into the Point area, to come forward and report them; to report fellow human beings who may have gone there merely to find a roof over their heads. The people of colour who move into Hillbrow today, move there because of the application of the Group Areas Act. Any young Black man today—and let us not kid ourselves; there is a rising Black middle class in the country today, a very strong one, which is a very welcome sign—has to share a little two-bedroomed home with the rest of his family. That young man is educated today. He has education behind him. He has a responsible job. He has pride as a human being. He wants to develop his potential to the fullest, and this obnoxious Group Areas Act stands in his way. What does he do if he wants to live decently? He moves into a flat in Hillbrow which White people do not want. If they did, why would there be so many empty flats?

I want to tell this Government that its biggest asset in this country are those people who have their feet firmly on the ground. None of us is packing for Perth. We have no intention of packing for Perth or Sidney or anywhere else. We are South Africans through and through. God may have brought us into this world with a different skin colour but that does not make us any different from those other people who claim they are loyal South Africans. We are equally loyal.

I may have become a little emotional on this issue but I know what we are going through. I know the bitter price we have paid as a people in this country. Not only the Indian people; all of us who have had the shadow of the Group Areas Act hanging over us have had to pay a bitter price. We have become estranged today from members of our community—and when I say our community I include all colours—because they believe we are participating in a system of government which is further entrenching apartheid because the Group Areas Act is still on the Statute Book. We still have to go and beg the White man for further land in spite of our being in Parliament. Who is the final arbiter? Who is the final decision-maker? Who decides finally where you shall live? It is still the White man, in spite of the fact that we have been in Parliament for the past three and a half years.

Therefore I say we should bring some credibility back to humanity. Let us prove to the outside world that we treat fellow human of colour with the utmost respect by doing away with this law. The White people may lose some more seats to the CP but I think that loss in the short term will turn into an investment for those people who want meaningful and genuine reform in this country.

Mr Chairman, while I took a few minutes break for other duties I was informed that the hon member for Cavendish indicated, inter alia, that the massive backlog in housing is a result of the Group Areas Act. I do not think anyone in this House would disagree with the hon member for Cavendish.

The policy of the Government at the time when the Group Areas legislation was passed in Parliament was separate but parallel development. As any mathematician could tell you, two parallel lines never meet. I want to say that if the Group Areas Act was applied fairly, if it did not lead to any uprooting of people, and if it was applied in a manner in which land was allocated to communities according to the ratio of the various population groups, and according to choice, I do not think the bitterness that has been expressed in this House and by many people outside this House would have been as severe as it has been.

I want to place on record that my party stands for the total repeal of the Group Areas Act. That is why you will notice that no amendment has been proposed this motion.

The hon member for Springfield indicated the other day that he has a bug here in our caucus. His bug may have worked, because we were going to propose the same motion. I do not wish to say that he has stolen our motion, but, of course, I indicated that he has not got much to say that is positive, so if he has stolen one of our motions, that is understandable. We shall make no difficulties as far as that is concerned.

This afternoon the hon member for Actonville gave us the case of Mr James. Mr James is a White man. In terms of the Group Areas Act, he is legally entitled to reside in his own house, which he bought and furnished by his own sweat and tears. He married an Indian lady, and in terms of the reform processes, which this party is partly responsible for, his marriage to an Indian lady is legal.

Marriage is full of pious platitude. Marriage is a sacred thing that is created by God. Here one has a situation where a husband buys a house in which he is legally entitled to reside. He is entitled by law to marry an Indian, but because of the racist attitude of a member of Parliament, who says that the permit must be refused … [Interjections.] Who is more important—a member of the Cabinet or a member of Parliament? Whose constituency is more important?

An MP.

According to the Constitution, a member of the House of Delegates occupies the same status as a member of any other House, but it seems that in the application of the group areas legislation, the constituencies of the hon members of the House of Assembly appear to be more important.

The same applies in regard to the issue of the second access road.

Blatant racism!

In my considered opinion—I said this in a plenary session of the SAIC—the application of the Group Areas Act was White avarice gone mad. We have passed resolutions in the SAIC. In 1981, on the occasion of the official opening of the SAIC, I likened the Group Areas Act to an atomic bomb, because the effect of the manner in which the Group Areas Act was applied, is being felt today with respect to valuations. It is going to take us a very long time, even if the Act is repealed in its entirety, to create a situation where there is going to be equality and justice. This is so because if the Group Areas Act were to be repealed tomorrow, there is one race group that holds the land.

I had a call at my house on Sunday, where a person from the East Rand, a member of the White community, offered to sell his land to the House of Delegates. He wants R200 000 for 2,5 ha of land.

That is exploitation.

Let us look at valuations, and the manner in which properties are valued for rating purposes, and the effect the Group Areas Act has had on these valuations. I challenge anyone in the Durban City Council to get me one hectare of land in Chatsworth and one hectare of land in Montclair.

Let us find out on which hectare more rates are paid to the coffers of Durban. The people are suffering because of high rates and the valuation of properties for housing purposes as a result of the Government’s White Paper on urbanisation. We complain because we pay R15 000 per hectare of land for housing. In 1982 the State bought land for the Indian community in Phoenix at R4 000 per hectare. That was considered to be too expensive at the time. The only way we can solve our housing crisis is to get land at affordable prices. In the north of Durban, whether one looks north-east, north-west or straight north, there is one group which holds the monopoly.

We own the Indian Ocean.

Of course, if we asked the Whites to show us their permit for the Indian Ocean, they would not like it. [Interjections.] We want to satisfy the housing requirements, but a very large property owner in Durban North just laughed at our officials when they suggested a certain price. For the benefit of the hon member for Phoenix I must tell this House that the asking price for any land in the Phoenix area is R40 000 per hectare.

Shame! Exploitation!

Lift the Group Areas Act and it will be available at R1 000 per hectare.

What about the case where a member of Parliament negatived a request for a permit for a White to reside in his own house with his legally married wife, whilst the Ministers’ Council decided to grant them that permit? How can we challenge the authority of God, when marriage is a sacred thing? How can we say that someone’s wife is not allowed to live with him? That is crazy!

Not in South Africa.

We take a very strong stand against the Group Areas Act in this House. On 9 February of this year I made a statement in Chatsworth, which I would like to repeat to this House:

If we are not able to satisfy our housing requirements the fault does not lie with the House of Delegates, but it lies with the Group Areas Act. If we are not able to give affordable housing to the broad mass of the people of South Africa, the Group Areas Act should be blamed. I do not want to concentrate only on the Indian community. In the Cape the Urban Foundation is spending as much as R45 000 per hectare for Coloured housing. They are paying as much as R60 000 per hectare for the Blacks in the Transvaal. Yet the broad mass of these recipients are people with an income of less than R1 000 per month.

The hon member for Actonville indicated that, in order to evict people, police dogs were brought in and that the whole spectacle was screened on international television. No amount of effort to inform the world about South Africa will undo the harm that this caused.

Five days ago I received a letter from a Mr James. We know that the circumstances concerned exists because of the Group Areas Act.

We must help him.

I believe that to a man we will support the dissolution of this House, knowing that the Group Areas Act will go with it. [Interjections.]

We cannot forget Cato Manor. We cannot forget the Warwick Avenue Triangle. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Isipingo touched my heart when he referred to the Eastern Transvaal. When one goes to the Eastern Transvaal one would think one was living in 1950.

All the verkramptes are there! [Interjections.]

One would think one was living in 1950. In Volksrust the Indian community has been residing there for 100 years and no one has made an effort to declare the land on which they are residing an Indian group area so that they may improve their housing conditions. They are living under terrible conditions. There are people there who occupy positions of power but who are not prepared to identify even a square metre of land for additional Indian housing because they are afraid that the Indian population of particular towns will exceed the White population.

I once applied for a permit to dine at the Pelikan Restaurant with certain people who had donated money to sponsor sports in Chatsworth. When I received the permit certain conditions were laid down. One of those conditions was that the Whites must sit at a separate table.

Shame! Are we lepers?

I have that permit. I keep letters. I want the hon member for Stanger to know that I keep letters and that I produce them when necessary. [Interjections.]

The permit conditions were that the Whites must sit separately and that the table at which the Whites sat …

Must be white. [Interjections.]

No. There had to be a distance between the tables. The tables were not to touch one another. That is crazy. That is really crazy. [Interjections.]

I have indicated that while the Group Areas Act is in force, both legally and constitutionally, there is no other way in which one can obtain land. I do not want to deal with the comments made by a certain hon member of the Opposition. The hon member for Cavendish criticised me, but I do not want to lower the standard of this debate. I think the standard of this debate has been quite high, and I think hon members on this side of the House will maintain that level. However, I do want to say that hon members should not use phrases such as “Nationalist Party”, because as I said in a debate, the real Nationalists and the greatest supporters of the NP do not sit on this side of the House.

They sit on your seat. [Interjections.]

They do not sit on this side of the House. There are very few people on this side of the House who hob-nob with the NP. [Interjections.] The hon the State President said, after listening to hon members on the opposite side of the House, that he thought he was sitting in a National Party caucus. [Interjections.]

I would suggest to the hon member for Springfield that when he replies he should be responsible, practical and realistic. I said on a public platform that we knew that the message of the May 6 election was that the Whites did not want the repeal of the Group Areas Act. It was a clear message. The election was fought on the basis of the issue of residential segregation. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Springfield made a great song and dance this afternoon about the right to free association. Some people would ask: What about the right to free dissociation? I am not asking that. However, I have heard that argument.

It is the same thing. [Interjections.]

I still want to say that when we take part in this debate we must not say things for the benefit of the Press Gallery. Let us not trade in catch phrases. We administer housing. We know what people say to us. We know what people tell us publicly and what they tell us privately.

In the constituency of the hon member for Reservoir Hills people have made frantic requests to me about squatters, and those people are radicals. We have made certain arrangements. We have said that we are not going to get rid of the squatters but that we must rather ensure that they have proper alternative housing.

If the hon member Mr Abram is correct, then the word of an ordinary MP from the House of Assembly is respected.

An area is advertised where they are intruding on the jurisdiction of this House, but when an hon Minister says to advertise an area, it is advertised. That is the situation. The day I lead this party in the style in which we can excel, this peaceful cause will lose important people. I just want to take one example. James’s permit must be granted and to blazes with Cliff Matthee. It might be that we will have to move a private member’s motion here and debate the matter for ten minutes, but it must be by the resolution of the House of Delegates. No amount of effort on the part of the Department of Information can do good for South Africa as long as poor James is suffering. Let us decide here with one voice that if the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates and a member of the Cabinet wants a permit to be granted, the negative backwardness of a member of Parliament of the House of Assembly should be ignored.

Mr Chairman, I shall be very brief because of the time constraint. I want to get straight to the point. I agree fully with the sentiments expressed by various speakers in this House and I think the hon the Minister and the Government must accept the fact that the biggest liability to reform in this country is the Group Areas Act.

The hon member for Lenasia Central moved a motion the other day asking for direct representation. I want him to know that as long as we retain the Group Areas Act he is wasting his valuable time and the valuable time of this House, because the local affairs committee system and the management committee system find their foundation on the Group Areas Act.

I have heard certain arguments presented in this House in favour of using the Group Areas Act because of representations being made by people who are unhappy about squatting in their neighbourhood and around their contiguous properties. I think that argument is rather shallow and obviously used in ignorance. Squatting is squatting regardless of the colour of the skin of the individual. If an Indian squats in an area illegally he must be dealt with. Whether the person is Black, White or Indian is totally immaterial and I do not think one can come to the defence of the Group Areas Act because of that situation. I must get that very straight.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wishes to keep this debate at a high standard, but he constantly adverts to some letter, apparently written by me. He alluded to this letter also when the hon the State President was here. He offered to produce the letter but he has not done so. He also made the statement that I opposed somebody’s permit application in Stanger. I want to set the record straight. I do not want to start any kind of personal attack or argument. [Interjections.] I am not taking any questions.

You did write that letter. You did object to approving the permit.

Mr Chairman, that is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s concoction. He has not produced the letter. [Interjections.] I do not want to argue. For the record, I want to state quite categorically that a Mr Nxele who is an attorney from Zululand, applied for a permit …

Order!

The hon member for Stanger should please confine himself to the debate.

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, Mr Nxele was an applicant for a group areas permit and he applied to acquire property in a place called Stanger Heights. He was supported in his application by the local affairs committee and the White council. Regrettably, the provincial executive turned down this man’s application. I am not holding the ruling party responsible. I think the provincial executive gets its directive from the central Government. Therefore I suggest that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council gets his facts straight.

As far as I am concerned, the Group Areas Act is bringing about polarisation between Indians and Blacks and arguments of this nature only aggravate the situation. I think enough has been said by various speakers on this particular issue. I do not think we need to talk this motion out.

My own feeling is that the hon members spoke most effectively in favour of this motion. I believe the hon the Minister will tell us again what we have been told since 1984. I do not expect anything new and I do not expect him to get up and support the repeal of the Group Areas Act. I believe that this motion should be adopted by this House to manifest all the statements that we made earlier. Let us have unanimity on the matter. Without much ado I would therefore like to move that the question be put.

Mr Chairman, I suppose I can also address the issue which the hon member has moved upon. I would like to start at the point where the hon member for Stanger moved that we should not continue debating the motion but bring it to a vote. The hon member for Springfield also started out on this point. I wish to address this matter for a moment.

Parliament has many significant traditions. If one looks for example at the carpet in this Chamber one sees that it has a centrepiece flanked by two side pieces. This same pattern is repeated in the House of Assembly where there are actually two lines running along each side. The same thing happens in the Westminster Parliament. The origin of this was that members were not allowed to overstep the lines and enter the centrepiece.

This prevented them from being able to touch one another with their swords. [Interjections.] The centrepiece therefore symbolises the peacefulness in which parliamentary debates take place.

The tradition of debating an issue developed to create opportunities for hon members to put their cases and to argue a particular issue without bringing it to a head and creating confrontation on that matter. It gives all the parties represented as well as the public outside an opportunity to take cognisance of the positions of hon members without the acrimony or confrontation of a vote.

I can quite understand the emotional nature of the motion before the House and I can see that hon members would like to vote upon the matter in order to demonstrate a point. However, the parliamentary traditions that developed over so many years have good reasons for their existence. If we were to cast them aside we would eventually have to pay a penalty for doing so. A possible penalty would be the disappearance of members’ motions as an institution in Parliament. This would not happen today or tomorrow but it would happen eventually if the basic rule of talking a matter out was not adhered to. This would endanger the institution of a member’s motion. I am therefore very glad that we will be able to talk this motion out in spite of the request of hon members. [Interjections.]

I do not want to deny hon members the opportunity to demonstrate their point—I think they have done that over and over throughout the day.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? He spoke about the traditions of Parliament and I would like to ask him whether it is not also a tradition of Parliament that where an hon member of the Cabinet is unable to prosecute his point of view in preference to a point of an hon member of Parliament, that hon member of the Cabinet should resign immediately?

Mr Chairman, I do not think that that is the gist of the convention. The gist of the convention is that if a Minister were to lose the support of the members of his own House it would in fact mean that he would have to resign. This is not only limited to South Africa, it is also the case in the British Parliament that if a particular Minister were to lose the confidence of his particular House, convention would require him to resign.

If we start addressing this particular motion it is particularly difficult for me personally to reply to this motion this afternoon. I can quite understand the emotions and the hardship it has caused through the decades of its application. One has much sympathy for that.

However, that does not mean that everything will be put right if this Act is simply scrapped immediately. In fact, I should like to predict—although this is not the kind of situation in which one can make experiments, so I cannot prove my point to hon members—that much more hardship would be created by its immediate abolition than was ever created in the many years of its application. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has made the point that if the Group Areas Act was applied fairly the bitterness would not have been so severe. It is not so much the Group Areas Act itself as the way in which it was applied over many years that created the injustices, the bitterness and so forth.

The hon member and several other hon members have referred to the number of people who were removed under the Group Areas Act. If they will just go back and look at their statistics again they will see what percentage of those people were in fact moved during the past five years. Members will see that the method in which the Group Areas Act is being applied at the moment is vastly different to the way in which it was applied previously.

I think it has got worse. [Interjections.]

There was another example mentioned by the hon member for Actonville who said if the Group Areas Act is repealed nothing will happen as was the case with the Mixed Marriages Act. However, there is a vast difference between the Mixed Marriages Act and the Group Areas Act.

It is quite right to say that nothing really substantial has happened since the Mixed Marriages Act was repealed except that it shifted the problems to another area. The problems were then created by the fact that the mixed couples had no place to go. It shifted that problem. The point is this, due to many circumstances in South Africa a serious imbalance has developed over a period of years in the provision of housing for the different groups. Some of it was due to the particular way in which the Group Areas Act was applied at a certain stage, according to a particular philosophy that is no longer current today. However, it was also caused by a wave of urbanisation of Black and Coloured people.

This has put a tremendous strain on the country’s resources to provide adequate housing in the urban areas. Therefore it is not all due to the Group Areas Act. The fact is that the imbalance exists. At the time when the Mixed Marriages Act was abolished there was no such imbalance between males and females in any one of the particular groups. If we had a situation where there was an oversupply of males in the one community and an undersupply thereof in another, the results of the abolition of the Mixed Marriages Act would have been different. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it, but the results would have been different because the conditions are different. Therefore, if, at this point in time, we simply abolish the Group Areas Act, the effect would be one of a dam which breaks and which wreaks devastation downstream. Therefore we must try to repair the imbalance in the supply of housing, because if we are able to do so, the existing pressure in the community in this regard will change.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Deputy Minister concede that presently there are 50 000 homes lying vacant in the White areas, whereas the Indian, Coloured and Black communities are hungry for land and homes and many are roofless. If those vacant houses were made available to the other groups, would that not repair the imbalance?

Mr Chairman, this is exactly what I am referring to. An imbalance has developed and I want to propose that we should address this problem not so much in the immediate scrapping of the Group Areas Act, but in addressing the imbalance. We can address that imbalance in other ways than the mere scrapping of the Act. In fact, if one looks at the initiative which the Government has already announced in regard to the Group Areas Act itself, namely the creation of open areas, that is a mechanism through which this imbalance can be rectified in an accelerated way. We need not only build houses for the different groups. There would seem to be more than one way in which to address the problem.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Deputy Minister agree that the creation of these so-called open suburbs is still subject to an overall law which, even if it has another name, is just a name substituted for the Group Areas Act?

Mr Chairman, it might even be that the name of the Act will remain the Group Areas Act. I do not know, as that is something which still has to be decided upon. The point is that it does not matter what the name of the Law is. The hon member also inferred that. The point is that if the proposals made by the hon the State President in October last year are to be carried through, then it will be possible to create open areas.

In terms of the same Act.

The principle behind this is to live and let live, because it is undeniable that there are people who would prefer to live in their own communities, among their own people. It is also undeniable that there are those who would prefer to live outside the boundaries of such restrictions. The principle is to make provision for both those approaches to life, whereas it is at this moment impossible to live legally in a mixed, open area.

That facility will be created for people who wish to live in open areas. The right of people to live among their own kind will also be respected.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to stand up in this House today and state that he agrees with us that the Group Areas Act must go?

Mr Chairman, I have no doubt that if the Group Areas Act is repealed forthwith, as requested in this motion, this will create even more hardship than the Act itself has already created, because the political implications of such a move would be unmanageable.

It seems to me that time is catching up with me. I would like to read out the intention of the Government, as stated by the hon the State President in October last year:

Therefore the immediate scrapping of this Act will create chaos and disorder in South Africa.

For the White man.

No, not only for the White man. In all communities in South Africa.

It has already done so. It cannot get any worse.

There is no question about that. I am a proponent of an approach where one bites off as much as one can chew at any one time.

Mr Chairman, I refer to the James case. I would like to ask if the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Planning finds it immoral that a man be prevented from living in his own house with his wife, whom he is allowed by South African law to marry?

Who were joined together by God!

Will the hon the Deputy Minister please look into my eyes when he answers this question?

I will do so. Mr Chairman, the exact purpose of a debate of this nature in a House such as this is to bring the inconsistencies and the problems that are created by the laws to the attention of the Government. I have no hesitation in saying that there are many inconsistencies in South Africa that need to be addressed. My point is that there is no quick fix. One needs to work on these problems to improve the position of people. Even if I accept the noble intentions of hon members in this proposal of theirs, I disagree with them regarding the means. I am quite convinced that the means which they advance will not achieve their goal.

There is no society in the world where there are not inconsistencies of one sort or another and where there are not injustices created by some law or another. Our job is to look at such inconsistencies and injustices and then address them, but address them sensibly.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? It is wellknown that there is also segregation overseas. One finds visible segregation as you go from country to country but the difference is that it is not entrenched by legislation on the Statute Book. Will the hon the Deputy Minister agree that this is the difference?

I would love to find the same conditions in South Africa as elsewhere, namely having an orderly society where it is not necessary to separate people by law. That is the ideal to which I aspire. The only problem as I see it is that the immediate abolition of all discriminatory legislation will not achieve that but will in fact dump South Africa into chaos. What we have to work towards is to create the conditions under which it will be possible. Then I will have no problem with the abolition of such legislation. This sentiment that I express now is shared by the Government.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion lapsed.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Order! I have to announce that I have called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Wednesday, 24 February, at 15h30, for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain bills.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, on a point of order, requested me on 16 February to reconsider my ruling on the reply given by the hon the Minister of Law and Order to Question No 26 on General Affairs.

On page 337 of the 20th Edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice it is clearly stated that the purpose of a question is to obtain information. It naturally follows that the purpose of a ministerial reply is to furnish information. A Minister may not use offensive or unbecoming language, neither may he debate the matter to which the question refers. A Minister is, however, permitted a certain latitude in his explanation to render the answer intelligible.

It is my view that the Speaker is unable to lay down the form in which a Minister should reply to a question, nor may a Minister be ordered to reply.

I therefore confirm the ruling I gave on the Minister’s reply on 16 February.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: In view of the fact that the point of order which I put was taken because the hon the Minister of Law and Order was heavily critical of another hon member of this House in the course of his reply—the point of order was taken on that basis—may I ask, Sir, if you are then ruling that hon Ministers may be critical of other hon members of the House during their replies to questions? If that is the case, Sir, may hon members of opposition parties, when asking questions arising out of an hon Minister’s reply, also be critical of the hon Minister concerned?

Order! I have duly considered all aspects mentioned in the hon member’s original point of order, and I have given my ruling accordingly.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The purpose of this Part Appropriation Bill is to appropriate an amount of R2 186,8 million to finance the expenditure of those departments which fall under the Administration: House of Assembly until such time as the Main Budget of the Administration: House of Assembly is agreed to.

The Part Appropriation Act for 1987-88 provided for an amount of R4 000. The larger amount was necessary since provision had to be made for expenditure over a longer period as a result of the election of members of the House of Assembly last year. No meaningful comparison can be made, therefore, between this Part Appropriation and last year’s Part Appropriation.

As hon members know, the amounts which are appropriated in terms of the Part Appropriation Act under section 4 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, are regarded as advances, and the authorisation for such advances ceases to have effect upon the commencement of the Appropriation Act for the financial year concerned. Payments already made at that stage, in terms of the Part Appropriation Act, are then deemed to be payments made in terms of the Appropriation Act.

†It must also be borne in mind that the moneys which are now being requested for the Administration: House of Assembly, must be regarded as a minimum amount required during this interim phase for the continued rendering of existing services. It is important to note that moneys appropriated by a Part Appropriation Act in terms of the said section 4 may only be utilised for services in respect of which expenditure was authorised by an Appropriation Act during the immediately preceding financial year, or in respect of which some other authorisation by way of an Act of Parliament exists.

As far as the monthly rate of spending is concerned, the expenditure of the Departments of Health Services and Welfare, Local Government, Housing and Works and of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services follows a fixed pattern. The spending pattern of the Departments of Agriculture and Water Supply and of Education and Culture, however, fluctuates. In the case of the former, this is mainly owing to the fact that subsidies in respect of interest on carry-over debts and Land and Agricultural Bank loans to farmers in designated areas are payable at half-yearly intervals, viz in the months of January and July.

As far as the payments to universities and technikons which fall under the control of the Department of Education and Culture are concerned, the bulk of the subsidies are payable at the beginning of each new financial year owing to the fact that these institutions operate from the beginning of a calendar year, as against the fiscal year of the State which begins on 1 April. On the other hand the educational components taken over from the provincial administrations follow a fixed pattern of monthly expenditure, except for April and July when certain payments in respect of service bonuses and bursaries must be made. The effect of this is that larger amounts are paid out in these months on a monthly basis in comparison with the rest of the financial year.

The financing of the Revenue Account of the Administration: House of Assembly in 1988-89 will again be dealt with in the same manner as in the previous two financial years.

Amounts for the 1988-89 financial year will therefore not be made available in terms of section 84(a) of the Constitution Act, but only in terms of section 84(b) and (c). Since section 84(a) provides that funds are statutorily guaranteed in accordance with specified formulas, it follows that in the absence of a formula Act, funds for own affairs are negotiated in the normal way in terms of section 84(b) and (c).

*Since the present constitutional dispensation has come into operation, a great deal of work has been done to give substance to the statutory formula allocations. Until such time as arrangements for these formula allocations have attained legal substance, there will be no guaranteed section 84(a) allocations, however. It is a pleasure to inform the House that negotiations in this connection have been concluded and that appropriate enabling legislation will be submitted by the hon the Minister of Finance during the present session.

In his opening address on 5 February 1988, the hon the State President, in speaking about a new framework for dealing with public finance said, inter alia, that current expenditure should be curtailed and controlled more strictly and that privatisation and deregulation would be accelerated considerably.

The Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly has been advocating the enforcement of financial discipline in the respective departments of the Administration: House of Assembly for some time. My colleagues in the Ministers’ Council and I shall resolutely continue to make a positive contribution to the essential curtailment of Government expenditure by means of financial discipline.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: On 11 June 1987, I raised a point of order in that a Bill was about to be discussed of which members did not have copies. I do not know whether the hon member for Lichtenburg has a copy but we on these benches certainly do not have copies of the Bill presently under consideration. After a long discussion on the point of order at the time, the Chairman of the House had the following to say (Hansard: Assembly, 11 June 1987, col 1252):

The Chairman of the House then went on to say that he believed the debate should be adjourned for practical reasons. The debate was then adjourned and the Bill was then distributed.

Here we again have a situation where we do not have the relevant Bill before us, and this is not the first time this has happened. As I have said, it happened last year and I think it is absolutely wrong that we are expected to debate a Bill which we do not have in our possession.

Order! It appears that we have some bona fide administrative problem or other which need not be ascribed to anyone at this stage. It is one of those things that can happen in a large organization. Under the circumstances it appears desirable that the hon the Leader of the House or someone else should move the adjournment of the debate at this stage.

Mr Speaker, before I comply with your request, I want to ask, on a point of order, whether the debate cannot continue, since no party can be prejudiced as a result. We all know that the information contained in a Bill of this kind is merely a framework and that we are not dealing with a Bill which contains long and essential provisions, but instead with only a Part Appropriation Bill to enable us to pay our accounts as from 1 April until the final budget has been agreed to.

I suggest that no one’s rights can be prejudiced, and if, because of the technical nature of the objection, you were to rule, Mr Speaker, that the debate be adjourned in any event, I want to appeal to the hon member for Yeoville to agree to withdraw his request so that we can continue the debate while handing out copies of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the ruling that was given last year on 11 June was that the debate be adjourned. I said then that I did not insist upon that. The Chairman of the House then said (col 1253):

That was what I would have had to do—

I was not the first speaker. The hon member for Lichtenburg has the first turn to speak. If he wants to go on with the debate while the Bill is being looked for, I might have a copy by the time he has finished speaking. I would be quite happy with that, but he must make the decision. [Interjections.]

Order! It is ultimately for the Speaker to decide whether to put to the House the question regarding a request for an adjournment, but if any of the hon members in the opposition benches are prepared to assist the hon the Leader of the House, they should indicate this to the Chair.

Mr Speaker, if it depends on me to decide what should happen, I feel like naming the hon the Leader of the House, but I shall not do so. [Interjections.] I am prepared to continue the debate.

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg is prepared to accommodate the hon member for Yeoville, and the hon member for Yeoville is prepared to accommodate the hon the Leader of the House. [Interjections.] Consequently there will be no motion that the House adjourn. The hon the Leader of the House has just told me that the Bill is at present available and is being handed out to hon members. I thank hon members for their co-operation.

Mr Speaker, in support of the issue raised by the hon member for Yeoville, I should like to say that this state of affairs is indeed unsatisfactory, and it is not the first time we have been confronted by such a situation. We have assembled to discuss a Budget without having been given the slightest indication of what that Part Appropriation Bill contains.

[Inaudible.]

I know, but the Bill contains at least a figure. It would have given us some idea of the scope of the topic under discussion, but we have come here empty-handed. The hon the Minister has only just completed his Second Reading speech, with the result that we have to begin the debate with no information whatsoever, without so much as a figure. I think the hon the Leader of the House will have to bestir himself and ensure that matters such as documentation are in order. [Interjections.]

In respect of this Part Appropriation, I should like to confine my comments to agriculture and refer to the floods and droughts which agriculture has suffered and the extremes, given renewed prominence by these events, to which nature and agriculture in South Africa are exposed. Sympathy was expressed yesterday for the people who had lost their loved ones and suffered terrible damage in the floods afflicting the western parts of the country. We wish to restate our sympathy with the people who have lost their loved ones as well as those who have suffered tremendous damage. I think the Government has acted correctly in promptly taking a hand and appointing a committee under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development in order to deal with this as a matter of urgency.

I also want to point out, however, that at least a few of the farms which, as we have seen on television, have been exposed to these floods do not actually belong to the owners, but to trustees, because as a result of the preceding drought those farmers are already financially ruined. These floods have descended in an awesome fashion, shaken the people to the core and been destructive in their effect, but the droughts, which have now come to an end after six years, had precisely the same effect. They stripped people of all their possessions and caused great distress of many years’ duration, but they captured no one’s imagination. The Government did not leap in to appoint a commission or take steps to intervene dramatically on behalf of those farmers, some of whose farms now belong to the trustees and have been washed away in the past week.

That is why I want to say that large areas of South Africa, especially the summer-grain areas, have been financially ruined as a result of a whole set of circumstances which we have had to deal with for the past decade.

Approximately 70% of the 102 towns and cities in Transvaal are, according to a survey carried out there, dependent on agriculture for their origin, existence and survival. There are 50 local area committees, 42 of which are dependent on agriculture.

Last year the R400 million scheme—it falls under this Department of Agriculture—was launched to save farmers from sequestration. It is one of the many failures that the Government has notched up. This scheme came to grief because, to begin with, the Government annoyed the private sector and did not get its co-operation, since the private sector was expected to write off debts while the Government did not want to do so and simply dug its heels in.

The second reason for the failure of the scheme was the fact that it could not be administered as the hon the Minister had planned. When the farmers addressed the hon the Minister on this, his answer was that the applications of those people who faced sequestration within six weeks would be dealt with. At the rate at which this task has been performed, it will take 50 years to complete the processing of the applications. Provision was simply not made, in administrative terms, for this matter to be dealt with at the required rate. As a result, it failed.

Now we have heard on the radio that the Transvaal Agricultural Union has made an appeal and proposed the formation of a consortium of financial institutions to take over the farms of those in financial distress. I do not wish to make any comment on that proposal, as we have absolutely no details about it. We will study it when it is available and then consider its merits.

It is, however, an appalling indictment of the Government that organised agriculture is now approaching the private sector and asking to be taken over. Surely this is a function of the Government. It is out of desperation that they are now asking the private sector to intervene and find a way of taking over the farms of those who cannot keep going.

What is now going to happen to the R400 million, of which virtually nothing has yet been spent? Will it go back to the Treasury, will it still be available and does the hon the Minister have 50 years at his disposal in which to spend it, or is the hon the Minister going to make other arrangements and find other uses for these funds?

It is known that approximately 30% of these tremendous debts of the farmers is owed to the commercial banks; 26% to the co-operatives; 27% to the Land Bank; and 6% to the Department of Agriculture’s Financing Section. It is clear that the sum owed to the Department of Agriculture is not the major portion of the amount.

Rain has fallen, but the harvests have been only partially saved. We hope that there will be moisture in the soil next year. The subterranean water will have been augmented and we hope, trust and firmly believe that this is the beginning of a new and favourable period in South Africa’s agricultural history.

Drastic measures will have to be taken in order to ensure that the people are in a position to resume production and repay their debts. I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister for the interest on the money owed to the Department of Agriculture to be frozen for at least two years, and for interest on the funds allocated for the consolidation of debt not to be levied.

One of my reasons for requesting this is that 70% of the towns in the Transvaal—this is also the case in the other provinces—are dependent on agriculture. We are seeing the infrastructure there crumbling, and now a plan also has to be made to settle the various odd debts in and around the towns, so that the suppliers there will also be able to keep their heads above water. That is why I ask that no interest be levied on these funds for at least two years and that debts be frozen just as they are. I also want to request the extension, by a further two years, of the Land Bank’s 20-plus-two-year scheme which is subsidised—I think those two years lapse this year—in order to subsidise that scheme further so that the interest will not be so high.

As far as the co-operatives are concerned, I want to appeal for the freezing of, in particular, the interest on the State funds which are administered under the carry-over schemes, and for the subsidisation of the co-operatives’ funds. As far as the commercial banks are concerned, I want to point out that I have approached the hon the Minister before to request the freezing of that interest owed by farmers which they are unable to pay. He wrote me a letter saying that it was not possible and that there were many implications involved. It is true that there are many implications involved, but I feel that something can be done if one really wants to solve the problem.

Since the hon the Minister does not see his way clear to doing this, I want to make another request. As that R400 million is now lying around and it is not clear how it is going to be administered or utilised for the purpose for which it was envisaged, I ask the hon the Minister to negotiate with the banks and the financial institutions so that over the next two years the farmers will not have to pay more than the prime interest rate. I request, in addition, that this amount be used to subsidise, by 5%, the farmers who are unable to pay—in other words, farmers who are in debt for amounts greater than the ’production value of their land—so that their interest rate will not be higher than 8%. I think the R400 million will possibly be enough to enable the hon the Minister to take care of that part of the matter.

I therefore want to appeal to the hon the Minister in all earnestness, seeing that the circumstances appear to have changed and it seems that we are approaching good and favourable years, to put the people in a position in which they can repay their debts. In doing so, the hon the Minister will be making the basis of South Africa’s economy sound once more.

I wish to conclude by saying that extraordinary measures are taken in all the developed countries of the world to support agriculture. That is why they are developed countries.

Agriculture is vulnerable to the fickleness of nature, and no other country is exposed to as many extremes as South Africa. In Europe there is a stable, moderate climate, and the same applies to many of the other developed areas. In South Africa that is not the case. I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister that the Government must not shirk its duty. They will have to do something so that the people are able to fulfil their obligations and hold their heads high once again.

Mr Speaker, the hon member referred to the flood damage we have recently experienced; damage by flood instead of drought. Such is the variety and inconsistency one experiences in agricultural production in South Africa which obviously always makes it exceptionally difficult to furnish the correct relief measures.

As regards flood damage, I want to point out that we were able to contact the director of the Free State region for the first time this morning. At that stage it was hardly possible to establish what the damage was. It appears, for the most part, to have been farm dams which have been breached, fences which have been washed away and stock losses which have been suffered.

It is stated at this stage that the disaster is assuming proportions more or less to be equated with what occurred in Natal in September 1987. As is usually the case with this type of damage, it takes time to determine conditions exactly. Water first has to run off before one can determine the exact damage.

The department has already decided to make a survey from farm to farm. This means a physical action campaign is being launched by visiting the farms one by one to establish exactly what each farmer’s circumstances are. In that way one is best able to determine how to help farmers, as conditions vary from farm to farm. One is a stock farmer …

You have finally woken up.

No, we have been considering this for some time; since last year, as he has heard. It is Government policy to concentrate relief measures on the individual rather than on assisting him on a commercial basis. We are preparing vehicles and also organising technical people from the Department of Agriculture in the various regions to conduct this survey on a proper footing. In this way every farm will be visited. Details will be furnished to the disaster committee, recently formed by the hon the State President. We shall then examine the financial implications.

The hon member for Lichtenburg referred to the failure of the so-called R400 million. This is a rumour which has been spread throughout the country in recent months. It is interesting to see where the figure of R400 million comes from. The scheme was introduced after intensive investigations were conducted in conjunction with organised agriculture and agricultural co-operatives in the summer-grain regions which are deeply involved in the matter. They came up with a figure of approximately 3 500 farmers on the point of sequestration and verging on insolvency. It was stated further that we could save about 2 000 of these farmers. It was then calculated that this would cost in the region of R200 000 per farmer—hence the figure of R400 million.

This department and others involved, such as the Department of Justice, made preparations so as to be able to cope with the demand, because we expected a rush of in excess of 3 000 farmers. But what happened? I shall quote the figure for 9 July 1987. Applications had been received from 311 farmers, of whom 99 were assisted, that is 31%. The question that arises is why there was no rush of farmers, and the reason for this is very simple. The R400 million was intended exclusively to save farmers from sequestration. The hon member is a practical farmer—I am also trying to be one nowadays, if I could only get round to it— and that is why I want to ask him what he would do if his financial position, his assets as against his liabilities, were in the balance. Assume good rains fall this year, lovely early rains, and the hon member has good land with a potential of four to five tons per hectare—I think the hon member once told me he had harvested four tons per hectare—and fertiliser levels have accumulated over the years, would he then apply under that R400 million scheme?

Once one has applied under the scheme, one is in a crush-pen, as farmers would say. The farmer has two options. He arranges for a debt standstill or settlement or has recourse to section 28, but he cannot turn back. In other words, this is a final stage.

What did farmers actually do? They said the rains were good—it started raining early in October— it looked as if it would be a good year. These were the people who no longer wanted to be helped by the private sector because the risk was too great. Nevertheless they applied for further production credit so that they could still put down a crop in the hope that their financial position would improve at the end of the year.

The department did this at great risk. It arranged with the farmer that he would go to his creditors and that they would not evict him while the crops were in the ground. What happened next? We assisted 2 680 farmers to get crops into the ground again. Eighty-eight per cent of applications were approved so that these farmers could put in crops again to improve their financial position. If one would only assess the attendant risk, one would see how great it is. In 1981 and 1982 we approved only 69% of applications. During the past year 88% were approved.

I think the hon member will understand what I am about to say to him. Why should people be forced or enticed into a scheme? The sum of R400 million sounds enormously attractive, but why should people use the R400 million scheme if they can get a second chance of having a harvest? This is what happened. If one moves through the summer-grain areas, one sees most of the lands under cultivation because most people planted crops.

That hon member now asks me what is to become of the R400 million. The R400 million allocated is no longer R400 million; it is less now. The hon member will know that we are using R13 million of the R400 million to finance the land-conversion scheme. I do not think he is opposed to this, as it is a sound scheme. Nevertheless the R400 million will still be at the disposal of this department and will in all probability be applied in other ways on which we shall have to decide later in the light of investigations to be conducted. I have told farmers—and I want to say it in this House— that the remaining part of the R400 million is still regarded as a dormant reserve for the further consolidation of agriculture. [Interjections.]

My department recently made an evaluation of all our various aid schemes of the past seven years, because this year sees us embarking upon our seventh year of drought. There are 28 schemes included in the entire series—in the designated area as well. These schemes have cost us R2 400 million over the past seven years. Of this amount, R1 400 million has been used in the form of loans, and the rest by way of subsidies and so on. The interesting point regarding this amount is that it represents only 5,5% of agricultural financing. Nevertheless 40% of the 59 000 farmers made use of this scheme.

This fact is in line with what was stated in the White Paper, which is maximally to have well-trained, financially independent resident farmers on the land. This is the smaller farmer; it is not the man who can obtain security from the private sector. Our clients are people who are no longer able to obtain financing from banks or co-operatives. They are category-3 farmers. Forty per cent of them have been assisted in the process, so we help the ordinary man. I think that that has been a great success and that we have thus succeeded in keeping farmers on the land to a very large extent.

Interest rates were subsidised, depending upon circumstances. Hon members will recall that we subsidised interest rates further at the beginning of this year. Hon members know about the 20-plus-2-year scheme, about the 5-year and 10-year carry-over scheme at agricultural co-operatives and about the fact that a low interest rate of 4% has been introduced. We are again reconsidering interest rates with a view to a further deferment period.

The hon member also mentioned another very important facet, which is that 70% of country towns are dependent on economic conditions in agriculture. That is correct, but the fact that terms have been extended and interest rates lowered has improved the farmer’s cash-flow position in the process. When the farmer’s cashflow position improves, he can pay the pharmacy and the shop, and this benefits normal business undertakings to be found in every country town.

Our point of departure is that this problem, which manifested itself in certain areas over the past year, is not only of an agricultural nature. There are other sectors which should also participate in this action campaign. I have no objection if organised agriculture, specifically the Transvaal Agricultural Union, is also ascertaining whether the private sector can make a contribution too. I have many questions I could ask, because the statement is made, inter alia, that the so-called consortium will now take over the farmers’ and the Government’s debts.

As I have just told hon members, Government debt runs to at least R1,4 billion. They will also have to take this over at low interest rates. They also have to remember the Land Bank and the R800-million scheme which is a semi-Government one too. When the R800-million scheme was introduced in 1982, the amount at risk was only approximately R500 million. That risk has now increased to R1,5 billion. I should like to know whether the consortium will take over all these debts.

How will the consortium supply farmers, who now in reality have to become managers on their own farms, with operating finance, and will production credit carrying 4% interest be made available to them? Surely the farmer has to be put in a position to repurchase the farm one day. These are interesting questions and I shall discuss them with organised agriculture as we have already been negotiating with them about the various schemes for the past seven years.

At the same time we have made provision, in our development and relief schemes, for preserving the natural resources of our country, and I shall name a few to hon members. These are important facets, because one cannot only solve drought problems; at the same time one has to pay attention to the preservation of natural resources, grazing strategy and stock withdrawal schemes.

Three or four years ago we literally had to slaughter hundreds of thousands of carcasses in the Northern Transvaal. This resulted in a large surplus of meat which had to be stored at great cost. The Land Bank granted the Meat Board a loan which we subsidised. This is only one of the relief measures implemented. Our animals did not die as they did in 1933, because we slaughtered them.

Three or four years ago, when a number of summer-grain farmers converted to dairy produce, we had a surplus of produce such as butter and milk powder which are actually the stabilizing products. Large stocks had to be stored and exported at an enormous loss. Loans guaranteed by the State were made by the Land Bank and interest was subsidised.

The recent land-conversion scheme enables the farmer to incorporate a greater degree of diversification in his farming system, not only to be able to farm in a market-orientated fashion, but simultaneously to decrease the risk factor in his farming enterprise.

If one moves from area to area, talks to farmers and examines their undertakings, one finds it interesting to note that the change that has taken place, especially in the summer-grain regions of South Africa, is that farmers have started considering the risk factor in farming systems. For instance, they start following the system of different planting dates with different cultivars. They do not plant all the maize on one day and have it all die on one day too. They plant at various times and start diversifying from one product to another. They start incorporating the stock factor, and I regard this as a very good sign.

The object of the land-conversion scheme is further aid to farmers to decrease the risk in their farming enterprises. This alone will cost the State R280 million over an 8-year period.

I want to add immediately that the method used in this conversion scheme does not work equally well everywhere. There will probably have to be a re-evaluation as regards this aspect, but we have started this scheme and we shall implement it in order to assist people.

We could continue in this vein. We assisted in various spheres of marketing in which we have experienced problems. We have recently had disasters. The flood disaster in Natal alone cost this department R50 million. We do not know what the current disaster will cost, but guidelines for the future are as follows. We shall have to furnish aid on a more individual basis. We shall have to adapt our existing schemes, and let me say immediately that it is not that easy to move away from existing schemes because one has built up an entire administration centred on them. Take for instance the administration centred on the carry-over schemes, the 5-year and 10-year schemes under the R800-million guarantee, and the campaigns initiated by the Land Bank and various directorates of co-operatives to launch this programme. I do not think these are matters one can merely brush off the table. These are matters one can re-evaluate, schemes one can adapt to specific circumstances. We shall have to examine this and, if necessary, most likely have to tackle new schemes too.

In the third place, assistance will have to be provided more selectively; this means specific areas and districts will have to be defined to establish where the need is greatest. In this regard I have to say there are certain areas where the risk is truly so great that it is not worth continuing with the type of assistance one provides in that specific area, in its present form. We shall have to see whether we cannot introduce other schemes there.

We shall have to obtain greater co-operation from the private sector; there will have to be discussions with banks, as in the past. In addition we shall have to examine a very important aspect, a type of debt-cover scheme, because farmers say one cannot settle debts by means of loans. Many producers have told me that they no longer see their way clear to incurring debt and, if one introduces further interest rates over longer terms in the process, this means a burden of debt extending over many years. I think one may consider a scheme like that of the Land Bank, the South African mortgage insurance scheme, through which one can at least insure that farmer’s estate in the event of his death so that his heirs are not left with that burden. This will also encourage farmers to participate in further schemes.

In consequence of these factors, we are reviewing the entire position. We shall adapt these schemes, and I am pleased the hon member said we believed better years lay ahead. At the moment we have switched from a drought situation to a flood situation, and this department will do everything in its power to effect conversion from drought relief to flood relief. The duration of this will most probably be far shorter and result in better farming systems in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, it is of course correct that the floods should play a role in this debate and should be debated, but the hon the Minister of Agriculture will forgive me if I point out to him that it is not only farmers who are adversely affected by the floods; there are many people who are not farmers who are also affected by the floods. I think the emphasis appears to be generally only on the farming community, whereas others who are also adversely affected are—if I may use the term—almost overlooked in this whole discussion. I think we need to focus on the fact that there are many other people involved in it as well.

Secondly, I think the fact that the floods have caused havoc and harm to both person and property is obviously axiomatic and is known by everyone. The need for relief is also obvious, but it is hoped that the need for that relief will not only be universally accepted but that we will also perhaps adopt a new approach to the manner in which the relief should be granted.

We have had the announcement of the hon the State President’s disaster committee. The hon the Minister of Agriculture has also referred to it. That is, however, a committee constituted by the Government and consisting of Government people only. What I should like to suggest is that this should in fact be a national committee which should ignore the political divisions which exist. It should be a committee on which people representative of all political parties should be serving; a committee on which we should have a broad representation of the people as a whole. I say this, Sir, because a disaster is not a selective phenomenon which affects some people and with which only some people should deal. It is a phenomenon which affects everybody and in which everybody should become involved in order to deal with the problems caused by such disaster. That is why I believe that that committee should be broadened.

I say to the hon the Minister with all due respect that I believe there should also be members of the CP serving on that committee. There should also be members of our party serving there. There should be people from the outside world sitting on that committee—people outside of the political sphere. That committee should be representative of the people as a whole so that the handling of the disaster could become a national effort.

A National effort involving the CP?

I am talking about a national effort not a National effort. There is a very big difference. [Interjections.]

Another point I should like to make—I tried to do so the other day, and I want to repeat my effort today—is in regard to the work which the Defence Force does in respect of national disasters. I singled out the Air Force the other day. The work which the Defence Force does in respect of national disasters should not only be rewarded with our tributes, but should indeed also be utilised to a greater extent. I want to point out that, for example in the border areas of South West Africa, we have used the Defence Force to play a role in bringing relief to people. I should like to suggest that insofar as this particular disaster is concerned, the Defence Force should not only be used as it is now, in assisting while the disaster lasts, but also afterwards in order to assist people, for instance, with the clearing up of their properties and homes, with the rebuilding and restoration of what they have lost. The Defence Force should be used in a constructive manner in order to demonstrate that the Defence Force has a constructive role to play, as well as a protective and often, unfortunately, a destructive role during times of war. The use of the Defence Force to a greater extent is something I should like to commend, not only in relation to the current flood disaster but in relation to natural disasters in general.

At this stage, Sir, I should like to move an amendment. I must say I am rather surprised the CP has not moved an amendment to a financial piece of legislation. I doubt whether they will vote for this one, but I move nevertheless:

This, Sir, is in line with what we have done before. We believe this is not the correct form of government. It is neither effective nor efficient. I am pleased that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly is here now, because I want to ask him to take part in this debate in order to demonstrate in detail some of the things he had in mind when he made some public statements recently in connection with the redefining of own affairs. He should give us some clarity in relation to his definition of own affairs so that the group aspect in which he believes can become effective to a greater extent. He needs to define that somewhat better. He needs to tell us a little more about it. Also, Sir, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare should tell us how the economic plans of the hon the State President fit in with his administration. What activities are likely to be privatised? What is going to happen in regard to the health services? Let me make an appeal to him here in regard to the Johannesburg General Hospital, which, I believe, is under great stress. That hospital is important to the people of Johannesburg, and it therefore needs urgent attention.

I should like to hear from him how he sees the issue of the social responsibility of society in this whole move towards privatisation. I should like to hear from him in connection with the schools. One of my colleagues will deal with this at length. He has been very silent on the question of the future of levy funds, which now appear to be an integral part of the whole system. I should like to hear from him in that connection too.

[Inaudible.]

No, we need to hear some more about that because the hon the State President has carried it further.

I should also like some explanation from him as to why, when in 1987 he had an amount of R17,7 million to spend on housing, only R8,5 million was spent even though 19 000 housing units are needed for Whites in South Africa. I should also like to ask him why in respect of the work creation programme in the same year when he had R16 million to spend he only spent R10,5 million. I believe that these matters require particular answers and we should like to hear them.

Finally, I should just like to say that I am very happy to hear that at long last we are going to have legislation in regard to the formulae. After having pleaded, begged and badgered for years and years it looks as though something may happen this year. However, I shall believe it when I see it.

Mr Speaker, while it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Yeoville, I do not believe the amendment he moved is worthy of any comment at all.

Some hon members have criticised the level and direction of previous financial debates and so it is pleasing to note that we are following the financial line here. It was said that while those debates should have encompassed matters financial, they rather tended to become a battle between the Afrikaner factions. However, as an English-speaker I must say that I believe that to be a half truth. Based on statistics for the 1987 general election, the NP is a truly South African party, and speakers on these benches have only been drawn into the battle in order to defend the truth. On the other hand, the CP Official Opposition have thus far concentrated their efforts upon drawing indelible lines and divisions between race and “volk”—brother and brother—not, I fear, for the sake of “volk”, but purely for the sake of party and in the pursuit of their impossible dream of a racist “Wit tuisland”, and certainly not in the interests of South Africa and its peoples.

Economic reform is one thing but if South Africans are ever to succeed in bringing about meaningful political reform and power-sharing among all our peoples we shall have to fight the White racist parties in this country with every means at our disposal.

English-speaking South Africans have played a major role in the past decade, and even more so in the elections of 1987, in holding the moderate power base of the NP Government. Market and Opinion Surveys estimate that 43% of English-speakers and 58% of Afrikaans-speakers supported the NP in the election on 6 May 1987, and I am proud to say I was one of them. Thirty-five per cent of English speakers supported the erstwhile Official Opposition, the PFP, in their total share of 14% of the vote. I have heard that this share has now been further reduced to an estimated 9%. So much for their much vaunted turbo boost and their dream of holding the balance of power!

What is the figure for the CP?

I shall not comment on that, Sir. [Interjections.]

As far as the independent groupings are concerned, I believe they are an unusual collection of visionaries and idealists and that the question of whether their ideals and aspirations are compatible remains to be seen. Dr Denis Worrall’s recent wooing of the remnants of the NRP which claimed a 5% support of English-speaking votes in 1987 has finally decided him to float his independent party. I venture to suggest, Sir, that he will find that his birds have flown having already mostly migrated to the more acceptable climate of the NP. Need I remind him and the members of the NRP who have not yet had the courage to face reality that the media and their other critics once took great delight in referring to them as the National Reserve Party? I think Dr Worrall will only use them to further his personal ambitions.

Lack of courage is inappropriate and a very bad trait.

The reaction of opposition members to the brave new economic programme presented in masterly fashion by the hon the State President in his speech marking the opening of Parliament was, save for one or two of the more enlightened hon members, predictably critical. The input from the business sector and comment by most financial critics has, however, been so favourable that changing the subject of debate to political matters and ignoring the fundamental financial message is probably the best way of avoiding the issue.

The State pension funds have received considerable attention during the past six months and in the earlier debates of this session, and I should like to add a few thoughts. Dr Wassenaar, who originally opened the so-called “can of worms” in respect of a few issues which I believe to have been minor, sounded a timely warning. On the larger issue of solvency, however, it seems there is an axe to grind and the debate has been purely political.

One aspect which I believe needs to be given urgent attention is a special benefit which, it seems, is being abused or is open to abuse. The average period in the calculation of pensions has been shortened. I am told that this is now the annual rate of pay on retirement. If an employee postpones retirement until a pay increase is due, he can substantially increase his pension and his gratuity. In addition to the vastly increased cost this entails for the pension fund, job seekers coming on to the market and promotion candidates are denied their rightful opportunities. Considering the rising unemployment in these difficult financial times, I think this aspect deserves special attention.

The city of Pietermaritzburg has been in the spotlight for some six months, and this has affected the business community there and the running of the city. We have had floods and unrest, all in our 150th anniversary year. There is no-one who does not have sympathy for the residents of the so-called Pietermaritzburg townships, greater Edendale and the KwaZulu urban settlements, with violence and unrest being the order of the day. The vast majority of people do not wish to be involved with the warring factions—the so-called warlords. They want to get on with normal life. We understand many are now being sheltered by employers in the city and in the unaffected outside areas. It is estimated that 30 000 to 40 000 have joined the ranks of the refugees.

While organised commerce, the city council, church leaders and local politicians attempt to negotiate a peace, a new dimension has emerged, and that is the race for membership between the Cosatu and Uwusa trade union movements which are aligned with the UDF and Inkatha respectively. I do not have time to go into detail, but the recent sortie by a group of young Inkatha members to the Cosatu offices in the city was just the tip of the iceberg. While the union has made a call for an end to the violence, there seems to be a strange reluctance to put this into practice. Need we remind the unions of the Sarmcol debacle at Howick? We saw the entire workforce lose their jobs and many lives lost due to the meddling of Cosatu union leaders.

Regarding education, it is disturbing to learn of the unhappiness and gloom in the teaching profession. The Teachers’ Federal Council has alleged a backlog in teachers’ salaries of 11% in relation to the rest of the Government sector and 30% in relation to the private sector. If this is correct, it will no doubt have a negative effect on the staffing of schools and consequently on the quality of education.

The federal council is, it appears, doing its utmost to negotiate in a responsible manner to improve the situation and I am sure they have the sympathy of most hon members. Their pamphlet of 2 February sets out their attitude, but it tends to paint an overly sombre picture. The TFC ignores the benefits of subsidised housing loans, cheap medical and pension schemes and longer holidays compared with the private sector. I hope their stance does not bring about the very thing they are hoping to avoid, namely a stampede from the profession.

Already this seems to have happened and two prominent Durban boys’ schools had 11 male teachers resigning in the first term of 1988 to enter the private sector.

There is no doubt that we have come to expect very high professional teaching standards and attainment of excellence in our White education as being the norm but we must also realise that in the process of moving towards equalisation of Black education standards, which is one of the major crusades of the White teacher societies, fairly drastic sacrifices will have to be made.

At a major boys’ school in Pietermaritzburg, for instance, while pupil numbers have remained the same the teaching staff has been reduced from 63 in 1987 to 56 in 1988. Teachers’ free periods and preparation time have also been reduced—matric English classes have been increased from 24 pupils in 1987 to an average of 33 in 1988.

Budgets for school building maintenance have been reduced to almost nil with little or no maintenance being possible. This matter requires urgent investigation if one remembers the proverb that a stitch in time saves nine.

For the parents, pupils and educators this is an anxious period but as in any period of transition it is a time for cool heads, careful planning and hard work to ensure the high standards of South African education.

The international standing of South African universities is also being jeopardised by the subsidy cuts, if what we hear is correct. I have misgivings as to the negative effect of the subsidy cuts, said to be in the region of 25%, on the education system. Universities would have to reverse this effect through careful planning, which could affect selection criteria of students and staff, reduce courses offered and necessitate increased fees and additional private sector funding.

It is also a disturbing fact that new students at universities have recently been subjected to fresher inauguration programmes. At some universities, regrettably, it seems that fresher indoctrination would be more appropriate.

At Natal University (Pietermaritzburg)—the ECC representatives are to be seen handing out pamphlets. The conscientious objector, Dr Ivan Toms, who is due to stand trial on 29 February for failing to serve his November call-up, addressed the students at length. An organisation whose secretary was detained last year for several months was freely issuing its propaganda factsheets.

I believe that this institution must get its house in order. The forcing of Nusas centre affiliation and the denial of the right of opposite viewpoints is something that student representative councils should pay serious attention to. At present the university’s traditional role of freedom of speech is in jeopardy; it is being abused and is drastic need of reform.

Mr Speaker, I should just like to tell the hon the Minister of Agriculture that in my opinion, and according to what farmers have told me about the R400 million which they did not take up, there were reasons for that other than those which he advanced.

Firstly they did not want to get caught in the crush-pen because once one enters into the crushpen, one has to go through to the other end, and this may mean sequestration. Secondly it took the directorate a long time—sometimes up to two months—before it paid attention to an individual’s case.

The CP is thankful that the Transvaal Agriculture Union is trying to establish a consortium to help farmers with their financial problems. We appreciate this and wish them every success. [Interjections.]

A nation which looks after its agriculture, looks after its future. This is so true, and this is what the NP used to do in the past, in the years when it was still the NP. During the last few years it seems as if there has been a shift of emphasis away from agriculture. This is such an enormous shift of emphasis that the Exchequer today gives agriculture about 300% less than it used to give in the fifties.

This year agriculture is receiving only 3,25% of the Budget from the Exchequer, and this in the midst of one of the biggest droughts, if not the biggest, in the history of South Africa.

Apart from the fact that the farmer has become the Cinderella—sometimes I almost feel like saying the motherless child—of the State, there are also three other disasters which have struck the farmers in the past year. One of the disasters is the abnormally high rate of inflation. I hope that the measures which the Government has announced will lower the inflation rate so that agriculture will also benefit from the fact that the inflation rate is no longer sky-rocketing.

Another disaster which could have been prevented, but which also created many problems, was the abnormal, excessive interest rates. More than one farmer has been forced to his knees as a result of the enormous interest he has had to pay on loans which he raised to extricate himself from his dilemma.

These two man-made disasters contributed most to the agriculturist being in an extremely precarious position today. There is, however, also a third misfortune which hit the farmer, and that is the drought. It is specifically in this poor economic climate that the drought is raging with such force and vigour. It has helped to drive more than one farmer into an even worse predicament.

Now I also see a fourth factor which is going to have a detrimental effect on the agriculturist, and that is the trade unions which are also becoming a factor in agriculture. If the trade unions infiltrate agriculture as well, even though it is peaceful on the farms at present, I want to predict that this is going to create a great deal of chaos and many problems. Today I want to ask the Government to do everything in its power to stop trade unionism from hitting agriculture. It is easy to stop production at a factory for a day or a week if the trade unionists say that work should be stopped. It is also easy to stop production on a mine for three or four days, but if the dairy farmer gets up in the morning and realises that there are no labourers, because people from elsewhere had ostensibly instructed them to go on a sympathy strike for that day, this is not such an easy matter to deal with.

I want to ask organised agriculture and the hon the Minister to give attention to the idea that no trade union will be established in the farming industry.

What is the situation of the farmer, especially the farmer in the Eastern Transvaal Highveld where there has been a good rainfall during the past few years and where conditions have been better than in the Western Transvaal and in parts of the Free State? According to the Highveld Analysis Scheme of the Eastern Transvaal Co-operative, the average financial position of the farmers in this area for the year 1986-87 is as follows: The average farmer had a gross farming income of R426 941. After all the expenses involved in harvesting his crops, there was a net profit of only R34 324, and this was not on small farms but on an average farm with a surface area of 1 894 hectares. For every R100 capital which the farmer spent, he earned only 2,96% interest. When the instalments on of the land and other commitments was subtracted, each farmer was left with only R4 959 per year with which to run his household. It cost R374 to plant one hectare of maize, and last year the above-cost margin was R132.

There are too many people who say the farmers should try to bargain for cheaper input costs. There are too many dreamers who say that a farmer can plant his lands to maize for only R100 or R150 per hectare. If more people would examine the farmer’s circumstances more carefully and share his living conditions with him, they would realise more and more that it is not that easy, in these times of inflation, high interest rates and droughts, to keep one’s head above water.

A Government which does not look after its agriculture has no future. Therefore I want to tell this Government that if it wants to go on surviving, it will have to look after agriculture. When I drive through the Highveld maize fields and I talk to the farmers, it seems to me that time has started to run out for this Government, that its days are numbered.

Mr Chairman, today I find myself in the position of having to speak after an ex-clergyman in a debate on agriculture. He spoke on agriculture, but I do not wish to discuss that subject today. Perhaps I could just say, together with hon members of the House who are honest and sincere, that I wish to express our sympathy towards the people who have recently been affected by the devastating storms. Someone who is not a farmer, someone who has not been completely ruined, like the poor squatter whose hut was swept away, can have no idea of the state of mind of these people and the problems they experience.

In passing I wish to refer to the hon member for Witbank. He said it was daft to speak about input costs of R150 per hectare of maize this year. When he was still in the service of the church— about four or five years ago—a statement was made here, which the hon members for Lichtenburg and Barberton a very strongly motivated, to the effect that it then cost R459 to produce a hectare of maize. The hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture rose and said he calculated that the net cash expenditure amounted to only R120 to R150 per hectare. Everyone tackled him about this at the time.

Now, four years later, photographs of the drought in the Western Transvaal appeared on the front page of Die Vaderland. On page two a Western Transvaal farmer was quoted as saying that at the moment, four years later, it no longer cost R459 per hectare to produce maize; it cost less than R200 per hectare in spite of three years’ inflation. The point I wish to make is that people who want to politicise agriculture can go on doing so. We who are in earnest about agriculture must, and will, see to it that jokers such as that hon member who make comments and adverse remarks here do not divert us from the course we have embarked upon.

To what member are you referring?

I am looking at him. If he glances in the mirror, he will also see to whom I am referring.

As a farmer I wish to venture into the uncomfortable sphere of the church today. During the recent no-confidence debate the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition stated in the strongest terms that he had frequently expressed opposition to violence and hooliganism at political meetings. At that stage he gave us chapter and verse to prove that Prime Minister B J Vorster was a CP supporter at the time of his death, the CP which was already under the leadership of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition at that time. Regardless of this statement by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, I have the problem that meetings were broken up in my constituency—but not by members of the AWB.

The leaders of this action campaign were two candidates who opposed the hon member for Bethlehem and me in the last election. They were not members of the AWB but people in the party hierarchy of the CP. One of them is the leader or deputy leader of the CP in the Free State.

But there is nothing wrong with that!

In spite of their chief leader’s stated aversion to hooliganism and violence at meetings, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is saying there is nothing wrong with that and repudiating his own leader …

I did not say that!

The hon member has just said so.

I said it was politicking.

In spite of that, they defy their hon leader. The anomaly exists that there is a leader on the one hand whose leadership, according to him, has been demonstrated and on the other there are people who act in defiance of his statements. Perhaps the solution to this apparent contradiction lies in the words used by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in a recent debate, that the people and lesser magistrates had the right to oppose the king if the king was opposed to the will of the people.

Calvin said that.

The will of the people was put to the test less than a year ago. Less than a year ago the electorate expressed its wishes. Less than a year ago the will of the people indicated that NP initiatives coincided with their wishes. [Interjections.] Because I hold the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in some esteem, I have to tell him, with the utmost respect, that he is arguing from a false premise. [Interjections.]

I should like to pursue the matter further to what is currently occurring in the DR Church. I should like to hear the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s standpoint in this regard. Two weeks ago prominent CPs in my constituency entered the Black township, tried to persuade Black people there to hire a Black taxi to take people to attend a church service at the DR Church. For what purpose? For what purpose other than to embarrass the DR Church and to try to motivate more members of the DR Church into leaving it?

In the same debate to which I am referring, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned that he was in good company, in the company of Luther and Calvin, when he rebelled against the church. If one views the logical outcome of such a rebellion in the church, one is forced to say that the CP and its followers who have established the AP Kerk, which is a political church through and through, are doing everything in their power to destroy the DR Church. I now have to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether his standpoint that a person may rebel against the church also means that he approves of this hooliganism by means of which his followers are attempting to hold the DR Church to ransom. Is this what it means, or will he condemn it? Will he express his condemnation of hooliganism at meetings or give a really strong lead in stopping it? I should be grateful if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would clarify this to us before the end of this session and reply to our questions. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I will not follow in the particular aspects that the hon member for Heilbron discussed. However, I want to refer to the flood situation in the Free State, Northern Cape and Natal and express from the point of view of those of us in Natal, who have had some experience of having our constituencies in part washed away, our sympathy and our understanding to those who have lost loved ones and who have suffered material losses.

I also wish to address the hon the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Welfare. He sat on the Natal Flood Relief Committee of last year and is now on the newly constituted one. I just want him to be aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the fact that pay-outs on the Natal flood relief applications have not only not yet been effected, but appear to have been barely initiated. I think the hon the Minister should give us a clear indication in his reply to this debate as to when, particularly people who submitted forms claiming small sums because they suffered losses in the rural areas, can expect to be paid out.

Is the fund being audited?

Secondly, I ask the hon the Minister to indicate quite clearly to the chairman of the committee concerning the Free State floods on which he now serves, the inappropriateness of the form that was used in Natal for applications for flood relief funds. It was an entirely inappropriate form from the point of view that persons who in many cases were illiterate and had suffered total loss, had to take legal advice in order to be able to complete that form. All we are asking is that the form be simplified and that, if necessary, two or three forms be made available, particularly for people who live in kraals or shacks in rural areas who actually want a very simple form without the legal demands made by the 11-page form that was used in Natal.

I should also like to make a very quick reference to Ladysmith. The hon member is not present here today and I know he will not take it amiss, but certainly the fact that Ladysmith has suffered its third flood in a year and that many people have had their homes devastated once again makes it incumbent upon the Government to investigate the whole issue of occupation of the floodplain area of Ladysmith with the very greatest urgency. It can no longer be put off, because it is a situation that is merely being repeated from time to time.

They have no soul.

I should like to turn to the matter of education now and to tell a fairytale on behalf of the hon member for Germiston. It is a fairytale, because in fairytales one sometimes has to use some of the information that comes to one by hearsay, while some of it is factual information.

It is a story concerning a Minister of Education. He is not a terribly important Minister, because there are so many Ministers of Education, but he is important to the extent that he controls R3 500 million of taxpayers’ money. It is therefore an important fairytale. To the extent that this hon Minister had to deliver certain answers to members of his own political party I think it is necessary that we should examine what he said. I refer to an article in the Daily News of 12 November 1987:

No doubt the hon member for Umhlatuzana wants it for the same good reasons. The Minister says:

Therefore that congress happily supported that particular hon Minister. It would not be correct for me to leave it at that point, because there were certain ogres—terrible, evil people in the woods—called newspapermen. They listened to what this particular hon Minister had to say and some of the editors printed it in their newspapers. I quote from the editorial of The Argus, 11 November 1987:

This Minister was subsequently called into the headmaster’s office—I think that is probably the best phrase—and told that this just would not do; that the country was not happy and that he would have to change his tune. So at the next congress that hon Minister arrived and, lo and behold, his tune was changed.

You are one of the gnomes.

No doubt the headmaster’s office is in the Union Buildings, but we can make our own deductions. I quote from The Star of 16 November 1987:

He was saying, therefore, that his party’s policy was not to blame, which was what he had also said at the previous congress.

Let us again look at what those terrible people, the newspapermen, said. There was an editorial in the Evening Post of 16 November 1987 entitled “You can’t have it both ways, Mr Clase!”:

Mr Chairman, I could continue with another editorial in The Argus entitled “Come off it, Mr Clase!”, etc. The point, however, has been made that the hon the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say on the one hand that duplication and quadruplication is necessary, although expensive, and at the same time say that a unitary policy would be hideously expensive.

I believe that the hon the Minister has to provide a number of answers. He has to give answers regarding pupil:teacher ratios. In this regard I just want to quote from Die Burger of 11 November 1987 at the same time, and I am quoting the hon the Minister:

Accepting what he says, I would like him to make publicly available the scientific proof that a 30 to 1 pupil-teacher ratio will not result in the lowering of standards. We have been throwing these figures around; not only he or myself, but also the De Lange Commission. We would like to see it.

Do you accept the De Lange Commission report?

Does he accept that the De Lange report was based on facts? I want to see that.

As far as the whole question of the formula is concerned, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare indicated that section 84 formulae are going to be available. I hope his colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture will make the formula for the funding of education available, particularly the question of what I believe to be the now fixed D-factor which ensures that White education receives a set sum of money.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown made a number of interesting points, but I wish to follow in another direction.

I wholeheartedly support this budget. Nevertheless, there are several aspects of education which I feel deserve the attention of this House. The groundswell against the practice of caning in our schools is growing to such an extent that I would, with respect, submit that we can no longer ignore it.

A number of pamphlets by professional people presenting compelling arguments against caning have been written. These detail the negative effects that caning has on the pupil, highlight the fact that caning can be considered a cruel and unusual punishment and that, given the number of Western countries which have abolished the practice altogether, South Africa should take steps to join the ranks of those nations.

According to experts, the trauma occasioned by caning on a first offender for what are often trivial reasons may be of such an order that it will take a therapist years to put it right. In some cases it remains a deep-rooted experience that can never be eradicated from the psyche. In cases in which rebellion is deeply rooted and the product of environmental and other conditions, canings will serve almost no salutary purpose, and will even embitter the offender, and ultimately provide a rebellion against all forms of authority, something which may have tragic consequences.

I want to associate myself with those who hold that caning is a demeaning exercise which is of no real effect in the enhancing of discipline. On the other hand, one does not need corporal punishment to enforce discipline on the battleground. So, why then in schools? The injunction not to spare the rod lest you should spoil the child, Sir, with the utmost respect, is as archaic as the expression itself. We cannot rely solely on such strictures, no matter how ancient they may be. If we did, the State would have to legalise the stoning of adulterers. It is also true that caning is sometimes administered for the most trivial of reasons because this is the only way in which the teacher or headmaster knows how to enforce discipline. What is of even greater concern to me, however, is that some experts have linked corporal punishment with the sexual abuse of children and other forms of sadism.

At this time it appears that corporal punishment is allowed at all our schools, subject to the proviso that only the principal, the vice-principal or a teacher duly delegated thereto may administer this violent punishment. It is my firm belief that to inculcate violence in children in the form of caning can scarcely do any good to young and impressionable psyches. Ultimately they may come to believe that violence in some form or another is the norm of the world, as opposed to the exception. Consequently, Sir, I believe caning to be undesirable, and would strongly support moves to have it abolished. I would do so, Sir, because little effort is apparently made to establish the real cause for the offence that merits a caning. A pupil subjected to such punishment could well be under tremendous stress arising from the home environment or other factors.

In other cases their actions could possibly be the result of drugs, the traffickers in which surely deserve the death penalty.

I am also advised by authoritative sources that in most instances where charges of assault are laid by parents whose children have been caned, the respective senior public prosecutors decline to prosecute on the grounds that the matter is an interdepartmental one.

Your party is going to receive a decent caning in Standerton! [Interjections.]

We shall see about that.

This is not a very satisfactory procedure to my way of thinking. I have received a disturbing number of complaints regarding caning. Permit me, Sir, to cite merely a few. A Grade II boy was beaten by a headmaster for playing with water during break. A 14-year-old girl was caned by a woman teacher seven years her senior in front of other pupils, including boys. A 14-year-old boy with severe remedial problems was caned for not rubbing out pencilled notes after a request by the teacher to do so. There have also been cases of youths not wanting to return to school after witnessing canings.

Clearly, Sir, this represents merely the tip of the iceberg. The House will surely take cognisance of many other publicly reported cases, even where these may have been reported in a sensational manner. I believe such cases give our education system and our country a bad name. Given all the factors involved, I believe the time has come to relegate this practice to the past, along with other ghosts.

Now, Sir, I am in no way casting a reflection on the overwhelming majority of our teaching corps, the fine and dedicated work of whom is to be admired and praised. This fine corps, however, will also surely welcome the removal of some sadists from their midst.

Clearly, headmasters and teachers cannot be robbed of the power to maintain and enforce discipline. In such cases, however, surely it makes sense to hold discussions with parents and guardians in order better and more effectively to address the root cause of the problem.

I earnestly suggest that the hon the Minister and his department hold in-depth discussions with concerned organisations, bodies representing teachers and parents, sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers and other interested parties with a view to working out a way of maintaining discipline without resorting to violence. In this way school will become not an object of fear but a place where pupils are thoroughly equipped for the challenges of life. In addition, the results of such a conference should be conveyed to each and every principal and teacher in the country.

I hope I will be allowed to digress a little, albeit remaining within the parameters of discipline and schools. I have received many complaints about the cost of school uniforms. I am fully aware of all the arguments for and against school uniforms, and they have been aired to the point of exhaustion. Yet, given the current financial climate and the fight everyone has to undertake to help the Government beat inflation, is it fair to expect parents to disburse such large sums of money on uniforms? [Interjections.] Given our African context, are our uniforms in the main not really designed for European climes rather than for our practical and utilitarian way of life? Surely fostering pride in schools is not contingent upon intolerably hot jackets, collars and ties. Why do we not introduce a system of safari-type uniforms with distinctive shoulder flashes and other trappings that can be individually attached for closer identification?

I also believe that the time has come in the responsible sphere of education for a new discipline to be added to the current syllabuses. In this regard I propose classes on the promotion of healthy lifestyles. These classes might contribute to diminishing the incidence of mental illness, suicide, stress and other problems.

It is also important, in my view, to instil in pupils a holistic knowledge as to the effects of drugs, alcohol, smoking and dangerous driving, to name merely a few evils. Pupils should be taught proper social responsibility and social adjustment, emphasising the universal norms of right and wrong, and all this in an atmosphere not of fear and sanction but of social concern and responsibility.

I know I am treading on rather delicate ground here, but I also believe that sexual education should be stepped up to prevent, inter alia, ignorance of sexual roles in marriage. Ignorance of this all-important aspect has led to many divorces, misunderstandings and even tragedies.

Pupils should also be made aware of their roles and responsibilities as teenagers, citizens and defenders of the rights of their fellow citizens and of their country. They should be made aware of the problems faced by the middle-aged and the elderly and of the reasons for those problems. The stigma attached to the mentally ill and the handicapped should also be combated vigorously at school level. In short, pupils should be given a holistic view of the society of which they will one day be full, fulfilled and productive members.

Above all, I believe that every class should start off in the morning with a prayer and that the national flag should be displayed in each and every classroom.

It is not good to leave people to find things out for themselves. The evils of this world will not disappear if we adopt the three-wise-monkeys syndrome—hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil. Knowledge of the evils of the world is, however, a powerful sword with which to combat them effectively. What better place to forge that sword than in school?

Mr Chairman, I move as a further amendment:

I do not wish to refer to the hon member for Bezuidenhout’s speech but I do want to comment briefly on what the hon member for Heilbron said. He began his speech this afternoon by saying he wished to speak on a subject that was rather strange to him. [Interjections.] He then went on to say that he wanted to speak about the church. Those of us listening also found it rather strange that the hon member ventured to speak on that subject.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the crisis in which White education … [Interjections.] … yes, together with the hon the Minister of National Education finds itself in this country. The Government’s policy of powersharing is the greatest single factor responsible for this. [Interjections.]

The price the Whites in this country have to pay for the Government’s constitutional philosophy of one undivided South Africa, one nation, universal suffrage and one citizenship is not only the loss of their once sovereign Parliament, not only the denial of their right to rule himself, but that price is also the systematic impoverishment of the Whites in their own fatherland. It is also lower standards of living and education because more and more State funds have to be channelled to the education of the other population groups.

The financial implications of the Government’s policy of power-sharing can no longer be concealed from the Whites. The disclosure of facts that have been hidden from the Whites for years, such as that they have to pay the highest financial price for the new dispensation, can now no longer be stopped. It now appears, to the disillusionment of many people who until recently supported the NP in good faith, that the Government’s policy of parity between different peoples has been applied at such a rate over recent years that the Whites—they are the goose laying the golden eggs—have gone to the slaughter in the process.

This is no time for the NP to protest. The Unisa Bureau of Market Research, which cannot be accused of ulterior conservative political motives, found that Whites’ real personal income declined by 17,9% in the period from 1980 to 1985. The increase in the real disposable income of the RSA between 1980 and 1985 went entirely to the non-White population together with the decreased amount in the real disposable income of the Whites. That is the economic price one pays when one adopts the standpoint that South Africa is one undivided country, that it is composed of minorities and that those minorities together form one nation with one Treasury under one Government.

I want to refer in particular to the effect of such a policy on the financing of White education. Why is no money available at the moment for improving the conditions of service of White teachers and White lecturers in this country? Why do provincial education departments instruct schools to economise up to 25% on important items? Because the logical implication of a policy of power-sharing also comprises the division of funds on an equal basis, and the Whites in a unitary state, as a small component of that one nation, cannot lay claim to preferential treatment. [Interjections.]

In that respect the Government argument is correct. With a unitary state as a point of departure, everything certainly belongs to everyone. In a unitary state one certainly cannot provide one teacher for 18 White scholars and one for 60 Black scholars. In a unitary state one certainly cannot provide luxurious buildings and facilities for the White portion of that one nation, and inferior facilities for the Black portion of the same nation. [Interjections.] In a unitary state one certainly cannot offer White teachers and White lecturers better conditions of service and poorer conditions to their Coloured, Indian and Black colleagues. [Interjections.]

In a unitary state, as created by the Government, there has to be equity in the division of funds for a matter like education. That is logical and everyone supporting the idea of a unitary state in regard to education as well has to accept this as the implication and give effect to it.

At present there is a dispute between the Government and the Federal Teachers’ Council as the mouthpiece of the organised White teaching profession. A few very important facts have emerged over the past few weeks.

Firstly, teachers’ and lecturers’ remuneration packages do not compare well with those of comparable posts in either the Government or private sector. Authoritative researchers have found inter alia that teachers are at least 11% worse off than people in comparable posts in the Government sector. It was also found that in real terms a professor’s net salary in 1987 was the same as that of a lecturer in 1981.

Secondly, there is dissatisfaction in the teaching profession, especially at the way in which matters are being handled by the hon the Minister of National Education and his colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, and because undertakings that were given to them have not been honoured.

Thirdly, this dissatisfaction is leading to large-scale resignations from the teaching profession. In the Transvaal in particular male personnel are leaving this profession on a large scale. In 1986 26% of all resignations came from male personnel. This grew to 37% in 1987. The percentage of resignations out of the total teaching establishment was 5,7% in 1985,6,6% in 1986 and 7,9% in 1987. All indications are that the percentage will be even higher in 1988.

Fourthly, these resignations, especially from key personnel in education, of necessity lead to a decline in the standard of educational provision for Whites in our country.

The CP wishes to talk seriously to the Government today on the situation it has permitted to develop in White education. In the first place we object to its handling of the matter, to the utterly amateurish way in which it is dealing with this matter. The FTC alleges that in December last year and even in January this year the hon the Minister of National Education sketched a very sombre picture of the economic situation in the country, and that was supposedly the reason why salary adjustments could not be made. In contrast to this, however, reports were disseminated that the economy was making progress. Surely there is justification for the question: Is a cat-and-mouse game being played with the teaching profession? Are voters in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton being told how well the economy is faring at present while a very sombre picture of the economy is being sketched to teachers behind closed doors?

I sketched a very sombre picture on salary increases … [Interjections.]

That is not the way to treat professional people who have been negotiating with the Government for years with the best possible attitude and fairness as their point of departure.

In the second place we want to censure the Government for the low priority it is obviously according education at the moment. I am quoting from a report in the media by the Chairman of the Transvaal TO. It reads:

Here we have the words of someone who could not be accused of politicking. These are the words of an educationist. The CP regards it as being of the utmost importance that the most capable teachers and lecturers be retained for the education for our people. We are seriously concerned about the rising resignation statistics, especially in the Transvaal.

We want to make this clear. Teachers and lecturers are entitled to receive at least the same remuneration package as people in comparable posts in the Government sector. Consequently we wish to appeal earnestly to the Government from this side of the House to give its immediate and undivided attention in the interests of our country to requests recently directed to it by the organised teaching profession. We appeal to the Government at least to grant the 11% increase, for which the teaching profession put forward sound reasons. If teachers in key positions are going to be allowed to leave the profession on an increasing scale, the Government will have to account for neglecting to take timeous and effective steps to counteract this.

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively to various speakers discussing education matters. I want to say immediately that a few very interesting matters were discussed in regard to education, particularly by hon members on this side of the House as well. Hon members will understand that in this debate I have limited time to reply to all the various interesting points of view that have been raised because it is actually the debate of the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. I want to ask those hon gentlemen to refer to these matters again should they have occasion to speak in the debate on my Vote. I shall also make a note to refer to these matters in greater detail in the debate on my Vote. I am sure that hon members, particularly those on this side of the House, will therefore pardon me if I do not refer to those matters in detail now.

It is very clear that the Official Opposition have made it their task both within and outside this House to paint a distorted picture of the education situation. Apart from the many other matters he raised today, the hon member for Brits once again made much of the fact that education was ostensibly a very low priority of the Government. That statement is so devoid of all truth that it is almost silly to have to reply to it. However, I do want to reply to a few matters mentioned by the hon member. The fact is that he climbed on the bandwagon on which various other hon members of the Official Opposition had already climbed, among others, the hon member for Brakpan who, if I remember correctly, did so on Thursday last week. They made much of the fact that this side of the House prides itself on education being an own affair but that education is ostensibly subject to general legislation. [Interjections.]

It is not ostensibly; it is a fact.

I did not make a noise when that hon member was speaking.

The amendment of the Official Opposition implies that insufficient provision is being made for complete self-determination. This is based on the same point of view put by those hon gentlemen. However, what is the true situation? Hon members are in fact correct as far as the Constitution is concerned. The Constitution provides that education at all levels shall be an own affair subject to general legislation but there is also the provision there “…subject to general legislation in respect of…” and then three matters are mentioned. However, hon members omit to mention this when they go out to fight an election. They do not tell this to the voters; neither are they inclined to say it here. The matters that are mentioned under the “in respect of’ are in conformity with the principles contained in the Constitution, namely that there are general and own affairs. We make no apology for that because, after all, it is true. It is after all true that conditions of service, norms and standards …

Financing.

… current capital expenses…

Order! I think the hon the Minister is quite capable of making his own speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

…are general affairs. Those hon members are now trying to reason that this document I want to discuss with them, namely the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act sets the tone and that all other legislation is subject to this Act. They say that Whites cannot therefore control their own education; any person belonging to another population group has the right to have a say. There is one thing however that those hon members do not tell the people outside.

I have here in my hand the KP-Standerton of October 1987. This is very interesting. We have here a photograph of the writer, a certain Dr F A H van Staden, who has a doctor’s degree in Canon Law. [Interjections.]

We find here too that he is a “leading educationist and former CP MP for Koedoespoort”. This man is responsible for the article and he refers to the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act and says it is Act No 85. Let us accept the fact that this educationist does not quite have his facts correct. There is no Act 85 of 1984. It is Act 67, but I merely mention that in passing. It makes no difference. In this specific article this gentleman explains that the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act is the legislation which gives the Minister of National Education the right to determine policy. He says that for that reason education has no right to say that it is an own affair.

What he does not say, however—and it stands here although he does not emphasise it any further in the report—is that it is a general affairs piece of legislation. In terms of the Constitution the Minister of National Education does of course have the right to pass legislation in respect of that general affairs legislation. In respect of own affairs—that does not appear here—the Constitution provides that the Minister of Education and Culture has the right to pilot that own affairs legislation through the House of Assembly. I also want to state categorically today …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister how many own affairs education laws have already been passed under the new dispensation?

The hon member will get nowhere with that question. The fact of the matter is that Act 39 of 1967 is the law that determines policy for White education. That voluminous law controls White education.

Dr Van Staden makes the further mistake of saying that section 2 of the National Policy for General Education Affairs Act is also contained in Act 39 of 1967. Of course that is so. However, it only deals with general affairs. It is only in regard to those affairs that the Minister of National Education has a say in respect of legislation. In Act 39 of 1967 it is prescribed that the policy in respect of own affairs education, White education, rests in the hands of the Minister of Education and Culture and also in the hands of the House of Assembly. There is no consultation with any Minister of any other population group.

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

No, first let me finish.

There is no consultation in this regard at all. Therefore, this House decides on the contents of White education. This House decides on the contents of the curricula and this House decides through the medium of its Ministers in regard to admission to those schools. No other legislation deals with these matters. I want to say, therefore, that there is an absolute distortion of the truth in this pamphlet.

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—he is shaking his head—whether he accepts everything contained in this pamphlet.

Must it necessarily …

I cannot imagine that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can say in this House today that he stands by what he has written here, because it is after all not the truth. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition were to say so, he would be guilty of allowing the dissemination of incorrect information in the country with his approval. I would not like to say this to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition but it is a fact.

Try replying to the hon member for Brits!

The writer of this article, Dr Van Staden, then says …

Answer the hon member for Brits!

Order! That is the second time the hon member for Losberg has made that interjection. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I quote:

I say that is a blatant lie and devoid of all truth!

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

No, when I have finished I will give that hon member an opportunity to do so.

This is a blatant lie, and I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he approves the fact that a lie like this should be bruited abroad. What stands here is a lie.

[Inaudible.]

This writer goes on to say furthermore that …

Order! Would the hon the Minister please bear with me for a moment. I understood him to say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition “You bruited this lie abroad”. Did he say that?

No, I did not say that. I said that if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition agreed with this, he was approving the fact that a blatant lie was being bruited abroad.

The hon the Minister may proceed.

The pamphlet goes on to allege that no single important education council or committee consists of Whites only. Each one is racially mixed. This is the second blatant lie because, of course, the names of a number of bodies are mentioned here which fall under the hon the Minister of National Education and deal with general affairs. Because they deal with general affairs, those boards are of course racially mixed.

Conversely, one can ask questions in regard to the Provincial Education Council and the legislation that provides for the Teachers’ Federal Council. These bodies are advisory to the Minister of Education and Culture and consist exclusively of Whites. It is a distortion to try to give people outside the impression that all these advisory bodies are mixed bodies and control White education. That is not so. They do in fact have a say in regard to general affairs, as indeed the schedule to the Constitution makes possible. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to another matter. Hon members of the CP must not run away from this because it is their election document.

We are not running away. We are sitting here. You must ask if you wish.

It states here:

That is correct.

Immediately after that we find the following:

I want to challenge those hon members now to tell us who said that. There is a second point however, and that is the distortion for which I blame those hon members. It is of course so that non-Whites are being admitted to private schools and that in respect of State schools provision has been made for some years now that children of diplomats may in fact be admitted to those schools. It is of course true that in respect of Taiwanese and people of related Eastern nations a concession has been granted in respect of admission to some State schools, but this statement which is now being bruited abroad that some or other Minister stated in the House that State schools are open to other population groups is not correct.

I also have here with me an election document, KP Schweizer-Reneke of December 1987. It states:

This is now being used as an election trick to give the electorate the wrong impression. It is not usual for education principles to be subject to a general law. It is only the three matters which I mentioned for hon members and which are contained in the schedule. Only the House of Assembly has a say in regard to White education. [Interjections.] All the principles contained in Act No 39 of 1967 still stand there untouched today. These are the principles of mother-tongue education, of a Christian character for the education, of a broad national character, and various others. However, hon members of the Official Opposition do not say this.

This election document also states:

It cannot!

Of course it can determine its own policy because this is done by means of legislation. I have just told the hon member that the policy of the hon the Minister of National Education only holds good for general affairs. I am not going to spend any more time on that subject. I am going to leave the matter at that. [Interjections.]

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

No, I first want to finish.

I want to come to another matter. I should like now to deal with an appeal which, according to the Press was made by the hon member for Brits during the CP Congress, namely that CP parents should warn their children about and request them not to participate in school choirs participating in the Great Trek Festival. Was he correctly reported?

The FAK.

Yes, the FAK. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he subscribes to the appeal of the hon member for Brits that children should not participate in the school choirs at the FAK Great Trek festivities.

Can the school choirs participate in the Volkswag Festival?

Just let me hear what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has to say.

Yes, I said that I agreed.

Very well. What is the position, Sir? During question time those hon members, among others the hon member for Overvaal, had a great deal to say in regard to so-called political activities of teachers who are members of the NP. There may possibly be such people and we must investigate the matter but here we have the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition associating himself with an appeal by one of his members to pupils not to participate in the FAK Festival.

Years ago this same Dr Van Staden who was at the time still the MP for Koedoespoort, made it clear at a CP congress and appealed to CP members to ensure that only CP members were elected to the controlling bodies of schools. Does he still stand by that? [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is doing some fancy footwork now because he does not want to tell me whether he stands by that or not. The fact of the matter is that these hon members preach politics to the hilt in schools but when we act against teachers who preach politics in schools, they object. I accuse the Official Opposition of making it their business through the medium of various CP MPs to incite teachers to practise politics in schools.

You do the same thing.

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

No, I do not have the time now.

I want to state categorically …

Order! Hon members may possibly not like what the hon the Minister is saying but he is entitled to say it. Hon members must give him the opportunity to do so. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I want to tell the hon members of the CP quite categorically that people who live in glass houses—as I said just now—should not throw stones, and if the teachers who wish to practise rightist politics in the schools run into trouble it is because their leaders encourage them to do so. [Interjections.] As far as this matter is concerned, I am on record as not having said that I will only act against teachers practising rightist politics. Our attitude is very clear—that education must not be abused for political purposes.

It is sad when the leaders of the CP encourage their people to practise politics in schools. It is sad when those leaders, including the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, admit this by saying that they also bring politics into festival celebrations.

The FAK also did so. [Interjections.]

I also want to put this question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] We can discuss that at length.

What did you do at the FAK?

I am not going to allow myself to be sidetracked but, as we are dealing with this subject, I have something to say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He referred to the FAK Congress in East London. The previous year the congress was held in the Cape, and then the CP and the political rightists came along and said that they should get their people into the controlling body of the FAK. The Nationalists said that it could not be possible that the CP, that had so much to say about culture, would wish to practise politics at the FAK Congress.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that what I am saying now is the truth. The CPs went out of their way to try to hijack the FAK at the previous congress in Cape Town. [Interjections.] All that happened there was that the reaction to those hon members was, of course, as was to have been expected. They provoked a good reaction which proved that the majority of our people were still thinking logically. [Interjections.] Yes, they made the right decision. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to follow up on what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has just said. [Interjections.]

Order! I direct the hon member to make fewer interjections from now on.

Obviously, Sir, I have nothing to say in connection with his speech, which was very little more than a reply to the CP and an attempt to score points with a view to the forthcoming by-elections. I must say this particular exchange of comments between the CP and the NP has really become quite disappointing and depressing. [Interjections.]

Beware the Ides of March!

I must also say, Sir, I am very sorry the hon the Minister did not reply to the more positive points made in the debate. He indicated to us in fact that we would be able to raise these with him again during the discussion of his Vote. Obviously we are looking forward to doing so.

I want to begin by saying that racially segregated education will never solve the problems of this country. It will in fact continue to contribute to those problems for as long as it lasts. [Interjections.] Much has been written and spoken about this over the past few years. The latest comments come from the Institute of Race Relations, in their publication on the desegregation of teachers’ training facilities, entitled Race against the Ratios. In that publication the point is made, and I quote:

Yet, Sir, despite the constant agitation among by far the greater part of the South African population, including people from all race groups, the Government remains committed to an own affairs education system, which is an expensive system, as the hon the Minister of Education and Culture admitted last year at the Transvaal NP congress, and to which the hon member for Pinetown also referred earlier. This same hon Minister admitted in 1986 that own affairs education would remain as long as he held the office of Minister of White education—a comment, which, I might add, has prompted many people in this country to hope that he vacates that office very soon.

The point is that own affairs education will never be a successful option for educating people in South Africa. The Government claims that education is divided in the best interests of the nation. The hon the Minister of National Education said last year at the Transvaal Parents’ Association conference, and I quote from The Citizen of 21 August 1987:

Mr Chairman, no one wants to see a decline in White education standards, but most people do want to see an improvement in educational opportunities and standards in Black education. While we are waiting for educated Whites to generate prosperity, growth and job opportunities about which the hon the Minister of National Education talks, we have to ask ourselves whether our separate Black education system is producing the skilled manpower needed to sustain our economic growth. The answer to this, Sir, is obviously no. The Government has committed itself to achieving equality of educational opportunity among the races but there is, in the words of the Institute for Race Relations, and I quote again—

If this is true—I for one certainly believe it is— the Government must face this reality. The hon the Minister of National Education has referred on many occasions to the fact that own affairs education will remain as long as people demonstrate a will for it. I therefore presume—I would like to ask him if he concedes this—that when by far the majority of South Africans demonstrate a will for a unitary system of education, the Government will move in that direction. I believe that the time for this came a long time ago, and the Government must certainly take it into consideration.

Another interesting question arises with regard to the future of own affairs education, and it is directly related to the future of the Group Areas Act. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture has already had to exercise his mind on this matter in this House. It was discussed when the President’s Council’s report on the Group Areas Act and other legislation was debated last year. I want to ask the hon the Minister if he really believes in what he said in that debate. Does he really believe that when the Group Areas Act disappears, either as a result of legislation or by the natural death it is doomed to die, separate schools can continue to exist? [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said then that he could see no reason why the present educational dispensation—I refer of course to own affairs and separate schools—could not continue to exist once the policy of open residential areas had been implemented. I ask him today whether he can really imagine communities where people of all colours live and work together being happy with the idea of sending their children to different schools based on the colour of their skin. [Interjections.]

I would also like to ask the hon the Minister whether he would regard busing as the answer to the problem of keeping schools segregated. I want to warn him that if this is the case, his plan is doomed before it even takes effect.

What happened in America?

That is what he is saying; you must not do it.

I believe the Government has little option but to start planning now for an integrated education system, and the sooner they accept this and start working on it, the better it will be for all. [Interjections.]

The Government must be prepared for the changes that will occur as more and more areas inevitably become open. Better still, let us legislate now for an education system which will provide for real equality of opportunity for all the people in this country. The first step in that direction will be to do away with the tricameral Parliament and the own affairs administrations. [Interjections.] Consequently I fully support the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville at the beginning of this debate.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban North concentrated on educational matters and put certain questions to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I am sure that in the course of the debates he will receive both comment and a reply from my hon colleague. [Interjections.]

*He said at the end of his speech that he and his party did not like the tricameral system. We saw during the past weekend what kind of move that party is going to make. I want to tell the hon member that we work according to a Constitution which was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the voters. Surely the voters’ wish is the basis upon which the hon member will have to move ahead. In fact, the voters also gave their opinion on the hon member’s party quite recently. They unseated it as the Official Opposition and put it where it is today.

There is another subject in connection with local government that I want to discuss briefly at this late stage of the debate. My point of departure in respect of the whole issue of local government is that it forms the backbone or basis of any democracy. It is a fact that our society consists of distinguishable communities. Attempts are being made today, not only in South Africa, but in the whole of the Western world, to bring government as close as possible to the people who are affected by the decisions taken by that tier of government. People want to share in the decision-making that affects their daily lives.

This phenomenon is also called participant democracy. It is not enough for the decisionmaking to take place as close as possible to the community; there must be constant consultation between the community, or electorate, and their representatives.

That is why one cannot argue today about the importance of local government and whether functions should be devolved from other tiers of government to this tier. In fact, this is obvious in any democracy. Worldwide research in this connection has confirmed that in countries with a strong local government tier, local authorities tend even to devolve some of their functions to the ward level to make them more community-orientated.

This trend has also been taken into account in the 1983 Constitution in which local government was declared an own affair for each population group, subject to certain logical exceptions. This could result in local government being strongly community-orientated and complying with the requirements and demands of the respective communities.

Local government is the most important component of the self-determination concept which is one of the points of departure of the constitutional reform that is being implemented at present. Regional services councils have been or are being established countrywide to comply with the principle of co-responsibility.

And are failing!

The hon member for Overvaal is going to get a big surprise when it comes to this subject. [Interjections.]

The primary local authorities can therefore make the community-orientated functions which affect their residents’ daily lives and are very important to them their particular focus. The point is that the establishment of a regional services council is no threat to the concept of self-determination. Any argument which claims the contrary is an expression of ignorance of both the Regional Services Councils Act and the Constitution.

The Regional Services Council Act contains certain guarantees which confirm and protect the concept of self-determination. I want to refer to some of these. In the first place section 3(1) (c) of the Regional Services Council Act specifies that the retail supply of electricity and water can be a function of a regional services council only if it is already being supplied by a local authority in the region when the regional services council in question is established.

Nowhere does the Act provide for retail supply within a municipal area becoming a function of a regional services council. A retail function can be rendered on behalf of a local authority and on its conditions by a regional services council as an agent of the local authority. Once again this possibility was included in the interests of the local authorities so as to enable a smaller local authority to continue to accept political responsibility for a service requiring extreme technical competence in its rendering.

Secondly, section 2 of the Act contains an important guarantee that the relevant Ministers of Local Government in the respective Houses of Parliament must express their concurrence with almost every action taken by the relevant Administrator concerning the regional services council. Their concurrence must be given when a function is entrusted to the regional services council, when the area is demarcated, when the compensation for the take-over of assets is determined and when almost any other steps are taken.

The own affairs Ministers concerned also form part of the Appeal Board to which appeals against the decisions of a regional services council can be lodged. This power of concurrence surely forms one of the most important guarantees that the regional services council will not compete with the primary local authority concerning the functions of the latter.

In the third place section 4 (1)(a) of the Act contains an important protection concerning the powers of a regional services council. This section provides unequivocally that a regional services council does not have the power to levy rates on immovable property. Not only is the local authorities’ most important source of revenue being protected implicitly, therefore, but the Act specifies that a regional services council cannot have this power.

On the other hand, the Act provides in section 12 (6)(e) that the services of a local authority can be financed from a regional services council’s sources of income if the regional services council were to take such a decision.

Despite what the hon member for Overvaal said, there is great eagerness to participate in the activities of the regional services councils. People are eager to serve on the regional services councils. Even members of the opposition parties who are members of local authorities are competing to serve on the regional services councils. In fact, there is great competition concerning the seat of the regional services councils in specific regions. I should like to say that the positive reception the establishment of regional services councils has received in the communities augurs well in this connection. [Interjections.]

I want to say that the transfer of local management functions from the respective Administrators to the own affairs Ministers, which will give substance to own affairs local authorities, is not an easy task. It takes time for a new constitutional dispensation to become properly established. The transfer of functions has to be preceded by thorough investigation, research and planning, and one can understand that this is no simple exercise. Local government systems have developed almost independently in the four provinces over many decades—over more than 100 years— to such an extent that as far as the Whites are concerned, there are at least five forms of local government at present, each with its own variations.

Just the identification of the various sections of the legislation or ordinances and the further refinement of these, section by section and subsection by subsection, for transfer to the respective Ministers, is a gigantic task, apart from the fact that certain technical problems had to be dealt with as well.

In speaking about these technical problems, I am referring specifically to the fact that ordinances for the declaration of local government areas had to be accepted in the respective provinces. In terms of these ordinances local government areas as such were declared for the respective population groups in the Cape, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, while in Natal the possibility was created for the Administrator to declare such areas.

A number of preparatory steps have been taken to enable the transfer of the own affairs functions, as identified and to be decided upon, within the foreseeable future.

†The jurisdiction this House has in respect of the areas declared as local government areas for the population group represented in this House was confirmed, inter alia, in the Local Councils Act passed in this House in October 1987, in respect of local areas. Decision making rights in the affairs affecting their everyday lives were given to even the smallest community desirous of this authority. Regulations are now being prepared to regulate the establishment of these local councils as a matter of priority, because it has since the passing of the Act become clear that this House has indeed provided for a need that has existed for a very long time. In passing this Act effect was also given to the policy of this side of the House that local government be promoted for all communities, and such communities will be represented in the regional services councils, which are the constitutional instruments for co-responsibility at local government level.

Local government in these days presents a tremendous challenge for every community-conscious person. This side of the House is giving effect to the policy in respect of local government as set out in the Constitution. It is not a process that can be dealt with overnight because, like reform at all other levels of government, it is done in an evolutionary manner with continuous consultation.

*Local government is a cornerstone in our view of the devolution of power. In addition it is an extremely important cornerstone of the principle of self-determination in respect of own affairs. The various population groups can deal fully with and decide upon local community interests within their own local governments, and this will lead to co-operation in regional services councils in deciding upon matters of common interest, without there being domination of one over another.

The Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly is eager to fulfil its constitutional role in respect of local government functions, in addition to the functions already entrusted to it by way of legislation, inter alia in respect of regional services councils and local councils, and also the activities in the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government Affairs. The Ministers’ Council will ensure that the principle of full self-determination in respect of own affairs develops in the sphere of local government, so that additional and new community-orientated functions will be entrusted to local authorities.

Mr Chairman, to a great extent the speakers participating in this debate this afternoon paid attention to matters pertaining in particular to agriculture, and education. My hon colleagues responsible for those departments replied to many of these arguments in the limited time at their disposal. I believe this debate may profitably be pursued in the discussion of the respective Ministers’ Votes.

The general impression was that it was almost no longer possible for members of the Official Opposition to participate in a debate without expressing their opinions in ever stronger terms. There is clearly an increasing radicalisation of standpoints in the ranks of the Official Opposition. One notes an increasing number of racially based remarks being made. The hon member for Brits is an undisguised advocate of White privilege. He finds it simply unacceptable that there should be equal treatment in a unitary state. I get the impression that he is not as concerned about the unitary state as about equal rights. [Interjections.] Yes, he is worried about these equal rights. I believe the increasing leaning toward radicalism we discern in the ranks of the Official Opposition has a cause and it is to be found in the close association between that party …

And the AWB!

Yes, and the AWB. I should like to discuss that matter further tomorrow, when it is customary to reply to this debate.

Mr Chairman, I move at this stage:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who was discussing this Bill yesterday afternoon, when the House adjourned. I thank him for his support for this Bill.

At the outset I want to rectify a matter with reference to what my colleague the hon member for Primrose said here yesterday regarding the number of passengers transported by the Alfred County Railway Committee from Izotsha to Port Shepstone. He said 100 000 passengers had been transported between 4 December 1987 and 10 January of this year. He obtained this information from The Citizen of Monday, 15 February 1988. In this report Mr Jorgensen, who is the chairman of this undertaking, is reported to have said that they transported 100 000 passengers. In Travelog, the magazine of the tourism industry, of February 1988 the figure is given as 10 000 passengers, and the SATS itself calculated that the number of passengers transported was 10 000. The department got this figure from an estimate of the lease income collected from the relevant company. I can just mention that the potential of this undertaking in respect of passenger services is approximately 30 000 passengers per annum.

With reference to the debate we are dealing with and the speeches of the Official Opposition, I turn to what happened on the standing committee. On the standing committee questions were put, and in consequence of this the legislation was discussed in detail in that committee.

It was asked whether any part of the rail network could be privatised. The question was asked by the hon member for Roodepoort. Yesterday afternoon the hon member for Soutpansberg said in this debate that no reply was given to this question. That is not true. The general manager of the SATS gave a definite reply to this. The hon member for Soutpansberg went on to ask whether the standing committee had not considered why the SATS could not operate a branch line such as the one under discussion economically. This matter was definitely discussed in detail on the standing committee.

The operating costs of branch lines by private organisations, such as this Alfred County Railway Committee, differ considerably from the operating cost structure of the SATS, particularly with regard to labour costs and overheads. Revenue from branch lines represents only a fraction of the revenue of the SATS. Operating costs per kilometer are the same as those for the rest of the network. However, the income for a branch line is far lower. A private organisation such as the one involved here, must be able to operate such a branch line economically whereas the SATS cannot. The question put implied that the SATS could also operate such a branch line economically with its existing management system. The management system of the SATS makes provision for the operation of the rail network throughout the country and cannot apply its own separate management programme profitably to each branch line. The SATS does not want to see these services discontinued and considers that such a service, as is the case here, should rather be privatised for the sake of the public which the SATS must serve.

The cost structure of the specific undertaking which wants to operate this Harding railway line does not make provision for replacement. The lower maintenance standards of the company operating the service and its concentrated marketing strategy make it possible for that undertaking to operate such a branch line profitably whereas the SATS cannot. This matter was discussed thoroughly in the standing committee. The management considers the strategy in connection with branch lines and the role of branch lines in the infrastructure. The management considers the social impact of the cessation of services on branch lines. This is important, because there are many branch lines in this country which are at this stage being operated uneconomically and therefore at a loss. The impression must not be created that the SATS is simply going to close down branch lines deliberately. In the rural areas in particular branch lines have an impact on the social infrastructure. For that reason this matter is being given serious consideration.

It was also asked in the standing committee what the value of branch lines was and what the length of this specific Harding branch line was, as well as the length of all branch lines in the entire rail network throughout the country. The value of the Harding branch line is R4,1 million. This reply has already been given, although the hon member for Soutpansberg alleged in his speech that it had not. The RSA has approximately 8 000 km of branch lines.

Are you sure of your facts?

If the hon member would just keep quiet for a moment, I could finish my speech.

The estimated value of this branch line network is between R200 million and R300 million. At present the Harding branch line is being leased out in terms of a five-year contract and the company leasing it is responsible for the maintenance of the section. A branch line such as the Harding-Port Shepstone line will be sold if there is a demand for it, particularly because this specific branch line is a narrow gauge line. The difference is that the rolling stock used there is not standard equipment and is difficult to replace.

That is why, in a case like this, the SATS will also consider selling the rolling stock to an undertaking which is interested in it. There are various options with regard to other branch lines in the country, but one foresees that such branch lines will also be operated or leased out under the option, as the SATS does with the railways of other countries. The SATS leases a great deal of rolling stock to the rail networks of Zambia and Zimbabwe, for example, and there is a standard lease contract which provides that this rolling stock is subject to the rental laid down in the contract from the time it passes a certain point until it gets back there. This is also linked to a time schedule.

There was also a question on the standing committee regarding the lifting of railway lines and a definite reply was given to this. The question was whether the infrastructure which already existed would be removed. The SATS will not summarily remove these railway lines until it has made absolutely certain that there is no one interested in operating a service on that railway line.

Another question concerned the definition of a branch line. The reply given was that a branch line was a line on which low volumes of freight were transported. The economy also plays a role in this, because one must also take into consideration the tariff on the type of freight transported on that line. Those factors will determine whether or not a line can be operated economically by the SATS.

All these questions were put on the standing committee and they were fully discussed there. However, the Official Opposition abstained from voting in the standing committee. They did not want to take a decision, but they then lodged the harshest form of protest which exists in this House against this proposed legislation. However, they sent different representatives to every sitting of the standing committee.

They are involved in an election!

I therefore cannot understand how they can lodge that form of protest. I deliberately presented all the questions dealt with to hon members and gave the replies to the questions regarding which the hon member for Soutpansberg had problems yesterday because he had obviously been given the wrong information. Yet the Official Opposition lodged the harshest form of protest here.

This proves that the Official Opposition is not seeking consensus. They are not interested in it. They politicise every possible strategy which will bring about more efficient administration. In this House they are speaking to have speeches, no matter how irresponsible they are, recorded in Hansard. This is the platform for their right-wing Press. They are insulting the intelligence of the voters of this country, because they deliberately distort facts, and I am glad I have the opportunity to associate myself with what the hon the Minister of Finance …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to say that members of the Official Opposition are deliberately distorting the facts?

Order! I was listening to the hon member and he may proceed.

The Cabinet is deliberately distorting facts.

For that reason I take pleasure in associating myself with what the hon the Minister of Finance said in this debate last week in connection with …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Overvaal say that the Cabinet is deliberately distorting facts?

Order! Did the hon member for Overvaal say that the Cabinet was deliberately distorting the facts?

Yes, Mr Chairman, and I meant it in the same spirit as the hon member for De Aar.

Order! If I understood the hon member for De Aar correctly he did not say that the facts were being distorted.

Sir, that is precisely what he said. That is why I raised a point of order.

Order! Will the hon member for De Aar repeat his words in that connection?

Mr Chairman, I did not say that the hon members of the Official Opposition were deliberately distorting the facts. [Interjections.] I merely said they were distorting the facts.

You said they were doing so deliberately. [Interjections.]

Order! I understood the hon member to say that the facts could be distorted, or something of the sort. My ruling that the hon member may proceed therefore stands.

I shall now come back to the hon member for Langlaagte’s point of order. The hon member for Overvaal must withdraw those words.

Mr Chairman, may I address you? If that hon member may say that we are distorting facts, all I did was to say that the Cabinet was doing the same thing they were accusing us of doing.

Order! I have given my ruling. I shall examine the hon member for De Aar’s Hansard. I did not interpret what he said in that way. I shall ascertain whether he said that.

Sir, if I said that it was done deliberately, I shall withdraw it if I see it in Hansard. [Interjections.]

The CP will leave here and through their Press they will tell the people of this country that the SATS wants to sell the entire rail network to big business. That is what they are going to say. [Interjections.] What they said yesterday amounted to this. They will go further and tell the people that many SATS employees are going to lose their jobs. They will go even further and tell several other wild stories such as “if this happens, that will happen”, etc. This is the way in which the CP participates in politics, and this is the way they blazon news from this House abroad.

You do not like those facts!

Oh, come on!

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting this legislation, but while we are now quarrelling about this matter and the hon member for Brits has been talking about the unitary state, I should like the CP to tell this House how the CP government will run the entire SATS and squeeze it into a White homeland. What are they going to do about the points sticking out in the direction of the harbours; the arms of the octopus? [Interjections.]

They will be the new branch lines.

What did you do about the lines to the Transkei and Bophuthatswana?

Then they will most probably tell us they are going to seek consensus regarding those arms with the people living in the countries around them.

Mr Chairman, to start with I merely want to refer to an event which I think passed unnoticed in this House, but which we did at least notice on the standing committee, namely that we have had a new general manager for the SATS since 1 February. We want to take this opportunity, the first opportunity we have had in this House, to wish the former general manager, Dr Bart Grové, who retired on 1 February everything of the best in his new career as a retired person. We hope that he will enjoy it very much. We know that this is a very hot seat in the national administration. It is one of the most difficult positions in which a public servant can find himself.

Of course the same obviously applies to the new general manager, Dr Moolman. We take pleasure in welcoming him and wishing him everything of the best in this very important post which he will hold in future.

The hon member for De Aar made a number of interesting remarks regarding what is supposed to have happened on the standing committee and what is supposed not to have happened, but what struck me first and what I want to mention is that this hon member is a particularly silent member of the standing committee. [Interjections.] Apart from the fact that he is particularly silent …

I listen!

… it would seem that he is also a person who merely sits there and does not listen. The questions regarding which he censured the hon member for Soutpansberg, the questions which, according to him, the hon member for Soutpansberg was supposed to have asked and which, according to him, were supposedly answered, were not answered.

The questions which the hon member for Soutpansberg put, were not answered. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to repeat that.

The hon member for Soutpansberg is no longer a member of the standing committee!

The same would seem to apply to you! [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow so many interjections.

Mr Chairman, on the standing committee I asked for particulars regarding the total length of so-called branch lines which would come into consideration for privatisation, and this was with reference to what had been said in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. I also asked what the value of those so-called branch lines was. Up to now that information has not yet been given to me.

But I have just given you that information!

You see, Mr Chairman, what that hon member did in his speech a moment ago, was to put the question more or less correctly. Then he made as if a reply which had been given was the reply to that question. You see, Sir, that was a distortion.

Yes, that is what the Nats do!

That reply which the hon member for De Aar gave was not the reply to the question I put. It concerned the specific railway line in the Bill under discussion. The question in connection with the total picture in South Africa has nevertheless not yet been answered. Sir, that is how the hon member for De Aar does things. He is distorting the facts in connection with what took place on the standing committee. [Interjections.]

A great deal was said about our behaviour on the standing committee, as well as the fact that we abstained from voting. [Interjections.] Now I want to say the CP is playing its part as a responsible opposition party in this House. [Interjections.] We refuse to be a mere rubber stamp for the NP. [Interjections.] If the NP Government enters into contracts with private organisations, and those private organisations perform certain functions which were previously functions of the State, we refuse to become a mere rubber stamp on an agreement which has already been entered into between the NP and that private organisation. [Interjections.]

Although we are keen to co-operate with all Government departments, although we are keen to maintain good relations, we want to state clearly that we are going to demand the necessary information from those officials when we require it for the proper consideration of Bills in this House. We are not prepared, on the basis of assurances which the NP gives us in standing committees, or owing to a lack of the relevant particulars which should be provided by the officials, simply to help in a random manner to pass Bills of this particular nature in this House.

There is general unanimity that there is a need for the operation of a train service on this particular branch line. This was set out in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and was indeed stated clearly in, inter alia, the speech of the hon member for Primrose. There can therefore be no doubt that this need does exist. However, our question was what assurance we as a responsible opposition party had that a proper investigation had been made to ascertain whether the SATS could not provide this service on an economic basis. That is why we asked the question. Sitting here today we are not yet convinced that an adequate investigation was made into this matter. We want to make this quite clear. Our standpoint as a party is that the SATS does not only provide a luxury service. The SATS definitely does not only provide a luxury service. It provides an absolutely essential service in the interests of the country. When the SATS can provide an essential service, we would prefer it rather than the private sector, to do so. [Interjections.]

We shall get around to the important debate on privatisation later. That is of course if the Government were to see fit to afford us the opportunity to discuss the question of privatisation at some stage or other before more Bills of this kind pass through this House.

But you have just said that you are opposed to it!

There are important aspects of privatisation which are at issue; aspects of privatisation which we must consider before we can agree to the passing of Bills of this kind. On the standing committee I asked about the investigations which had been made, and it was indicated to us that a team of investigators had been sent overseas to undertake research, and that the team had returned with the specific reply that this matter had both a negative and positive side. These were the words used in the reply I was given. It was therefore a case of “yes, but be careful”. That aspect was never discussed in detail on the standing committee. It has never been discussed in a debate in this House either. How can the Government then simply pilot this important legislation through this House, legislation which will mean that any stretch of any railway line in South Africa can be privatised, without that essential background.

We refuse to do things in this way. We say it is highly irresponsible. It is not fair to our voters who sent us here either. We have a responsibility to them.

Privatisation has been discussed here frequently! There is also a White Paper on it!

Mr Chairman, when one considers the motivation for the relevant Bill, as we find it in the explanatory memorandum, there are two things which strike one immediately. The first of these is that mention is made throughout the memorandum to branch lines. It is also true that in the memorandum emphasis is placed on the privatisation of one specific branch line—the Port Shepstone-Harding branch line. However if one looks at the provisions of the Bill itself, it becomes quite clear that it contains a general right to privatise in regard to the SATS’s railway network in general. This is the first fact which strikes one, This, I repeat, is the case although a proper debate on privatisation has not yet taken place in this House or on the standing committee.

Another aspect which strikes one in the memorandum is that three factors are put forward which make it essential for this Bill to be piloted through Parliament quickly. In the first place it is alleged that the SATS want to do everything in their power to finalise the privatisation projects successfully. In my humble opinion this on its own means nothing. We know that the Government has stated repeatedly that it wants to privatise. This specific sentence therefore does not contribute anything towards indicating that this legislation must be piloted through Parliament as a matter of urgency. I am deliberately skipping one reason because I shall get around to it later, when I shall indicate that I am of the opinion that this is the important reason why, according to the NP, this measure must be urgently agreed to by Parliament.

The third motivation given in the memorandum is the deterioration of the railway line while it is not in use and is not being maintained. This alone, Sir, is yet again no reason at all. It makes no difference whether the private sector or the State maintain the railway line. This is therefore no motivation either. It is further stated, and I am quoting:

Sir, I therefore submit that it is quite clear that what is happening here is that the NP Government, through the SATS, entered into a contract with a private organisation, gave certain undertaking and made certain promises to them, and now wants to bulldoze this legislation through Parliament quickly, in order to legitimise this entire system, which they have already established.

Now, Sir, I want to concentrate on the other aspect of this Bill. This is over and above the privatisation of this specific short branch line. This concerns the question in connection with the right to privatise the entire rail network in South Africa. It is absolutely unbelievable that the Government can think for a single moment that the Official Opposition would be prepared, after the extremely limited discussion which took place in the standing committee and with virtually no factual information at our disposal, to agree to probably one of the biggest assets of the State being transferred in this way to the administration and to discretion of the SATS, without any control by Parliament, to deal with as they see fit. I associate myself with what the hon member for Soutpansberg said. We are not opposed to privatisation as such. However, we want to consider every separate case on its merits, and we expect adequate information to be made available to us so that there can be a proper debate on the entire process for each separate case. This entire matter could have been approached differently. Consensus could probably have been reached with the Official Opposition if a general measure, in the general terms of the Bill under discussion, had not been drafted and submitted to this House. If, on the other hand, a specific piece of legislation concerning that specific branch line had been discussed and submitted to this House, together with the factual information regarding it, the situation could have been quite different.

However, in view of the circumstances which exist today, and under which this debate took place, we have no choice but to vote against this Bill. I therefore support the amendment of the hon member for Soutpansberg, in which he moves that this measure be read this day six months.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodepoort may have tried a bit harder than the hon member for Soutpansberg. However, both of them said equally little in this entire debate on the privatisation of this stretch of railway line.

The hon member for Roodepoort asked many questions but it was quite clear that the questions which this hon member asked in the standing committee were not asked to gain clarity on this matter, but to see how much information he could get in order to turn the privatisation of this stretch of railway line into a petty political issue outside. That is why the questions were asked.

Now the hon member says that he refuses to be a rubber stamp for the NP. However, he was one because he did not vote for or against the legislation. What is he, therefore, other than a rubber stamp? [Interjections.] What else is he if he did not vote for or against the legislation?

The hon member said that he had asked what the length and total value of all these branch lines which had to be privatised were. That is true; he did ask that. But how can the SATS answer him when there is no offer or demand for branch lines other than that specific one? There are many such branch lines which no one will ever have any interest in, but the hon members says that if we privatise one the rest must also be privatised. That is why the hon member asked that question.

Those hon members must not serve on the standing committee, make no contribution and then profess be fighting against privatisation in this House, for that is what this actually amounts to.

The hon member alleged that one of the reasons advanced for the privatisation of the railway line was that the line was not being maintained. He then asked whether it made any difference whether the private sector or the SATS maintained it? For what reason would the SATS maintain a branch line which was not in operation? That does not make sense.

If there was ever proof that the CP had hijacked the policy of the HNP, the hon member for Soutpansberg gave it. Several years ago the HNP conjured up spectres in connection with so-called big business. They distributed pamphlets to show how much tax the poor Whites were paying and how much was going to be given to the Blacks and how big business did not pay tax at all but was swallowing up the whole of South Africa.

The CP has now come up with the same story. They tell the people that the NP are in the process of alienating their assets to big business. That is what is happening. Why do the CP not tell us what they are going to do about big business when they come into power. Are they going to nationalise big business? [interjections.] I am talking about the people they are so tremendously opposed to.

When we talk about privatisation they say they are not opposed to it. The hon member has just said so, and the hon member for Primrose summed matters up well when he said that they pretended to be in favour of privatisation, but every time something was privatised they were opposed to it.

Outside, and here in the House, they say that the Government is auctioning its assets.

Government auctions!

The Government is supposed to be holding government auctions. In this way they are making a wonderful impression on the people outside so that they can win a few votes in the by-elections. This is, after all, not true. The CP asked whether there had been an investigation into the operation of these branch lines.

The hon member also asked that question on the standing committee, and he got a reply. The staff of the SATS told us on the standing committee that the branch lines were being operated at a loss of R120 million a year. That is the figure; I wrote it down. They nevertheless ask whether an investigation had been made into the operation of these branch lines.

Now you are distorting the facts!

What is so strange is that the hon member for Soutpansberg said that we should first lease the branch lines. He asked whether it would not be better, particularly as regards this section of railway line, to determine whether it could be operated profitably—in other words, we should first ascertain this—so that it could be leased to some undertaking or other for a couple of years.

Is that not a ridiculous statement? For what earthly reason would we lease it out if it was determined that it could be operated at a profit? [Interjections.] These people’s statements do not coincide. They contradict themselves in many respects.

The same hon member went on to talk about the passenger services. He said that in his constituency they had discontinued the passenger services between Louis Trichardt and Messina. Then someone asked him how many passengers made use of that service and he said it did not matter how many passengers there were. [Interjections.] He said that train service had been in operation between Johannesburg and the South African border for 70 years. [Interjections.]

I suppose that hon member does not visit his constituency very often, because if he did he would have seen that alternative services exist. We are 70 years ahead of him. There are quite a number of mini buses and taxis, etc, which have been legalised—they are not there illegally—and which have taken over that service the SATS always provided. The hon member is therefore saying that even if there are only two Black women who want to travel from Messina to Louis Trichardt there must be a passenger service for them. According to him the number of passengers does not matter at all. [Interjections.]

The same people accused us of gambling with money overseas. Why did these people not ask for a commission of inquiry when we discussed this matter on the standing committee? [Interjections.] Who asked for it? I proposed that we request a commission, not to investigate the loans, but the administration of those accounts. That motion was agreed to. Those people sat there and did not open their mouths about the commission. [Interjections.] Eventually my motion was agreed to. [Interjections.] The hon member should go and read the minutes. It is very easy for someone to stand up here and speak against this measure, and then make no contribution.

I take pleasure in supporting this Bill in terms of which we will privatise that stretch of railway line.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Bethlehem, who has just resumed his seat, most sincerely for the positive way in which he dealt with the legislation, and for the way in which he used his argument to indicate to the hon members of the Official Opposition which particular mistake they made in connection with this legislation.

I should like to start with the positive side, namely the hon member for Primrose, the chairman of the standing committee, before I get around to the hon members for Roodepoort and Soutpansberg.

The hon member for Primrose pledged his support for this legislation. We thank him very much, not only for the support, but also for the particularly good guidance he gave the standing committee.

In his argument the hon member said that crosssubsidisation had to be phased out. That is correct. However, this also means that the reason for cross-subsidisation will have to disappear, namely that there will have to be proper compensation for the uneconomic services we are rendering. If we alone are responsible for these services, cross-subsidisation is necessary. We must compensate for the loss somehow. That is why profitable services pay for the non-profitable services. That is normal practice in many groups of companies, but it is not a good practice.

The hon member for Primrose contends that we have an obligation in respect of privatisation. That is quite correct. By privatising the Harding-Port Shepstone railway line, Parliament is entitled to learn about the progress in the general manager’s annual report—that is what the hon member was requesting.

In this regard the Auditor-General will also check the accounts of the SATS properly. If the SATS were to do anything which was not in line with good business principles, this Parliament would be entitled to say something about this. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Later on in my reply I shall come back to whether or not Parliament still has a say regarding this matter, because hon members of the Official Opposition have alleged that Parliament was going to be ignored and that from now on we could do as we wished outside.

I also want to tell the hon member for De Aar that he did adequate research. It is quite correct that he keeps his eyes and ears open on a standing committee so that he knows precisely what goes on at those meetings. The fact that he was able to reply to the hon members in his characteristic way, proves that he was a good member of the standing committee. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon member for Soutpansberg. He was supported by the hon member for Roodepoort. Let us see what the hon member said early on in his speech:

The hon member simply assumed that the branch line had already been sold.

That is what he asked.

No, the hon member only started asking that later. He simply made the statement; his attack on this piece of legislation was excessive and exaggerated.

What does this legislation mean? Section 9 of the Act of 1981 defines all the powers of the SATS. Hon members need only look at subsection (5). However, I want to refer them not only to this subsection but also to subsection (22). It reads:

And so on. Those hon members did not object to this subsection and what followed. Most of the hon members agreed to this 1981 legislation, and they did not really disagree with later amendments to this Act. We have the power to sell any assets of the SATS tomorrow if we wanted to. If we want to sell the SATS tomorrow we have the power to do so. We do not need this amendment in order to do so.

Why are you then introducing it?

I shall tell the hon member why. We have closed branch lines in the past. Why? Because they became uneconomical.

For example a couple of years ago we closed the branch line between Touws River and Ladismith. What did we do with those rails, houses, the few stations and the stops? We told the farmers that they could buy them. We even placed the railway line at their disposal. In the past we have removed the rails and sold the sleepers. We could do this owing to the wide powers given to us in this legislation. If those hon members think they are frightening us they are wrong. They think we will do such an irresponsible thing. Hon members will remember that the hon member for Soutpansberg made such a tremendous drama out of this. He said:

He went on to say that it could be sold for—

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Roodepoort has already made his speech. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The hon member is forgetting …

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

No, I am not going to reply to a question now. The hon member had an opportunity to put questions during the meetings of the standing committee. I find it strange that he did not even ask about the contract. Did the hon member ask about the contract on the standing committee? [Interjections.]

Order! I am afraid if hon members carry on like this, I am going to prohibit all interjections. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

If hon members look at section 2 of the original legislation, they will see the following:

In section 3 it is stated that the SATS is a business undertaking of the State.

The point I want to make is that the Minister is sitting here and the hon the State President is here as the Head of the Government and that every hon member on that side of the House could call us to account if we were to be so irresponsible as to sell the entire South African rail network.

For R10!

This Parliament has already given us the power to deal with our buildings and property, to lease them and to establish business undertakings and to afford opportunities to people in the private sector. Why? Because the SATS wants to improve its revenue in South Africa. The Official Opposition opposes legislation of this kind. Are they not concerned that the SATS in South Africa does not have the revenue, it should have as a result of the entire approach to transport? There is tremendous competition. Those hon members say they are in favour of privatisation, but they do not want to give the SATS the opportunity to improve its profitability in South Africa.

That is not true!

They do not want to give the SATS the opportunity to take better care of its present employees, its pensioners and their dependants.

Cool down!

They will not get the opportunity to tell the story in Standerton and in Schweizer-Reneke that we want to sell the entire South African rail network. We will also tell those people that when an opportunity arises for the SATS to be made more profitable, those hon members refuse to give us their support.

The hon members made a big fuss about the fact that it was going to be sold. After all, they know that a five-year contract was entered into with the company.

I have here in my hand the memorandum of the agreement for which the hon member for Roodepoort asked. If he is an hon member of the Opposition who is so concerned and does his work so well, why did he not ask for it on the standing committee? He simply passed judgment without asking what benefits the SATS could derive from this agreement. In these five years the SATS is going to make a far greater profit from this little branch line than it would have made if it had operated the line under normal circumstances.

The SATS is not weak and the management is not bad either, but it has been proved over the years—let us single out that branch line—that we cannot do what the private sector can do under these circumstances. This decision was not simply taken. A proper investigation was made and officials were sent abroad to see how this worked in other countries.

This does not mean that all the branch lines in South Africa are going to be privatised. Businessmen who want to privatise the other branch lines in South Africa are not going to be queueing up outside Parliament. This branch line is a unique narrow-gauge branch line, which runs through beautiful scenery. People will therefore definitely be interested in going to that area.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the Deputy Minister whether tenders were called for to realise the best price or how the public was informed that the railway line was available?

In my opinion pioneering work was done in this regard, and I am sure there was not a single person who did not know long before the time that this branch line was going to be closed, and who therefore did not have enough time to show an interest. These were the only people who were prepared to come forward and negotiate with the SATS. However this is not a permanent arrangement and the respective parties agreed that it would be revised after five years.

This piece of legislation is a milestone as regards privatisation, and also because the SATS wants to play its part in giving the private sector a larger share. The SATS know where it cannot make a profit, because it must provide too many uneconomic services. Because this is pioneering work we in this House must give our support to this legislation. It does not endanger South Africa, because we are not going to sell or lease the line from Cape Town to Touws River or from Touws River to Beaufort West to other people, because how would we then be able to manage our own affairs? The kind of argument certain hon members raised, namely that we were going to privatise large sections of our railway lines and hand them over, although we could operate them just as well ourselves, is ridiculous.

This legislation is very important and I want to thank hon members on this side of the House and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central for their support. I give this legislation my blessing. [Interjections.]

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the Question.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Mr Lewis’ whole life was dedicated to education. He served as principal or teacher at the following institutions: Harding, Port Shepston, L C Johnson Technical College, Mangete and Wentworth. He later lectured at the Hermes Academy, a non-racial institution, and became a pioneer when he was the first person of colour to be appointed principal of the Inanda Seminary. He also served as an education planner in the old Department of Education and latterly served as Chairman of the Education Committee of the LP and Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Education. He spent some time in West Germany studying their education system. He was a founder member of the Natal Teachers’ Society and a life president thereof. He also served as president of the Union Teachers’ Association of South Africa, made an exceptional contribution to the Natal Indaba and served as a member of that steering committee.

He addressed his last public meeting at Mangete on Saturday, 20 February.

He was married to Nel for 49 years and was looking forward to the celebration of their 50th wedding anniversary later this year.

We certainly pay tribute to the dedication of a gentleman who impressed all with whom he came into contact. We remember his humility, quietness and reservation. He was one dedicated to duty, very responsible and certainly a perfectionist. We shall miss his presence in this House and his contribution to the wider field of education.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon members on this side of the House I am honoured to associate myself with the words of condolence expressed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in his motion and also to second the motion.

The sudden passing away of Mr Maurice Lewis came as a great shock to us. We on this side of the House pay tribute to the memory of a man such as Maurice Lewis. We will remember him as a great educationalist of our time. He taught for over 40 years at various schools in Natal, serving for more than half of this time as principal. He also served with distinction as president of the Natal Teachers’ Society. Mr Maurice Lewis travelled widely overseas, particularly to Europe and the United States of America on invitation by education bodies in those countries.

Mr Lewis will also be remembered as a dedicated and tireless civic worker, particularly in the densely populated area of Wentworth. We got to know him in this House as a hardworking man and as a person who performed his task with dedication.

We will remember Maurice Lewis as a thorough gentleman and a courteous individual who commanded the respect of everyone. We on this side of the House associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy with his wife and his family.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the DWP and my family I wish to associate myself fully with the remarks made by the hon the leader of the Labour Party concerning my dear colleague, Maurice Lewis, who passed away today. It was with shock and dismay that I learned of his death.

I first got to know Maurice Lewis in the eighties when we were both executive members of Cope. Since 1984 I served with him on the Standing Committee for Education. He was always a gentleman. In my days as Leader of the Official Opposition he never regarded me as an opponent or as an enemy but as a friend and a colleague. Even at our last meeting last week we were able to sit down as colleagues to debate education.

I want to convey my deepest and sincerest sympathy to his wife and his family in their time of bereavement. This House will indeed be poorer for the passing away of one of the great educationists in this House and in this country.

Mr Chairman, for the information of hon members I wish to announce that the funeral will be held in Durban on Saturday.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Justice I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

It is expected that the estimates of expenditure in respect of the services of the Administration:

†I have consulted with my hon colleagues and with senior members of my administration and we estimate that an amount of R761 796 000 will be needed to see us through until the Main Budget has been accepted around the beginning of July 1988.

I am asking the House to approve that such an amount be made available for the following reasons.

For the Department of Education and Culture we seek the House’s approval for R416 972 000 for teachers’ salaries, allowances and service bonuses, and to meet expenditure on supplies and equipment at our schools.

My own department, that of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, will need R16 096 000 to meet interim expenditure on personnel and administrative expenditure, computer services, payments to contractors for the transport of pupils, etc.

An amount of R148 072 000 is requested for the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture so that it may defray expenditure on personnel, housing, the supply of office accommodation, the purchase of land for schools and other institutions and for the erection of educational and other buildings.

Finally, the House is asked to approve that an amount of R180 656 000 be made available so that, inter alia, our Department of Health Services and Welfare can continue to render service from the end of the 1987-88 financial year until the Main Budget has been approved.

*As I have already indicated, this financial legislation before the House is not the main budget, but it will enable the Administration: House of Representatives to continue its activities efficiently into the next financial year. I want to assure hon members once again that the Ministers’ Council is making every effort to ensure that our community receives a fair share of the available funds to provide for its vital needs. I trust that the discussions arising from this legislation will be aimed at promoting and attaining this objective.

Mr Chairman, we have noted the amounts appropriated by the hon the Minister of the Budget by means of this legislation, but I had expected the hon the Minister to provide a little more clarity. All we have heard today is that certain discussions have been held in consultation with other senior officials and other hon Ministers of the Ministers’ Council.

It is very clear, however, that this sum, which is intended as a supplementary amount until the middle of June when the Main Appropriation is to be introduced, will be inadequate. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must afford the hon member for Macassar the opportunity of putting his case. The hon member following him may then refute his facts. The hon member for Macassar may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am referring to what the hon the Minister of the Budget said, which is that this Administration: House of Representatives requires this money to be able to continue its activities for the next four months. What has degenerated into a squabble over there shows one the type of ignorance to be found here. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must try to refrain from making personal remarks in the debate. The hon member may proceed.

Drunken driving.

Order! What did the hon member Mr Lockey say?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! Yes, but what did the hon member say?

I merely said “drunken driving”, Sir.

Then the hon member is to withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! I appeal to hon members to refrain from making these distasteful remarks. I instructed the hon member to withdraw that remark. The hon member for Macassar may proceed.

Sir, it is such a pity that when children are born in country districts with the aid of a midwife it is said that the baby is “caught”. It is regrettable they are not there to help in taming them. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is to proceed with his speech and omit distasteful comments. Would hon members please be quiet. The hon member for Macassar may proceed.

The hon the Minister has provided for almost R6,096 million for his own portfolio as an interim measure. It is a pity that the hon the Minister has appropriated this amount but that it is said in his own department at the same time that “we shall not listen to a ‘Hotnot’ Minister”. I should like to address the hon the Minister personally on the matter because such expressions by so-called White officials promoting AWB and CP policy within the department cannot be tolerated. Provision cannot be made for those people. One would do better to get rid of them and give the money to people loyal to the department and the hon the Minister. I should like us, if the hon the Minister will permit it—if one belongs to the Opposition one is not always so welcome—to find an occasion to discuss this matter because to me as a member of the so-called Coloured group this is going just a bit too far. If the hon the Minister cannot get rid of that official, he should transfer him to Skilpad-vrek-van-Dors to work there.

A further aspect I wish to touch upon today is the question of bus transport. The hon the Minister said provision was being made inter alia for the conveyance of school children. There have been repeated appeals in the House to the hon the Minister for a uniform system for bus contractors. Unfortunately, when one discusses a matter, the impression is often created that one has a personal interest in the case. I want to tell the hon member for Mamre that this is far from the truth. In this regard I want to refer to a report in Die Burger of 18 February describing a bus accident at Citrusdal when 100 children were presumed to be in the bus. During the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote …

Order! The hon member for Mamre must control himself. The hon member for Macassar may proceed.

During discussion of the hon the Minister’s Vote in the House last year the matter was thrashed out thoroughly. It is a pity that the hon member said in his reply that the hon member for Macassar broadcast rumours. At five o’clock one morning in August last year I took the trouble to have a look personally at the buses of one of the contractors at the Lynedoch Primary School. To my shock and dismay one of the buses had transported 128 children. When they opened the door, the children fell out of the bus as there was no time for them to alight. They could do nothing but simply fall out. That specific morning a further bus turned up with 108 children. Buses may convey only 68 children but were carrying 108 and 128 children respectively. I want to request the hon the Minister to telephone the municipality of Kuils River and find out how many accidents the buses of the contractor concerned have been involved in recently.

It is asserted that this contractor’s bus drivers spend their time somewhere in a bar during the quiet period when children do not have to be conveyed and then convey the children in this sodden state in the afternoons.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member disclose the contractor’s name to us?

Sir, I am referring to a report which appeared in Die Burger on 18 February in which the contractor’s name was clearly given as Mr G J Botha of the Kleindiamant Bus Company.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Surely the hon member for Mamre has received his answer. Would he please give the hon member for Macassar the opportunity of proceeding now.

Sir, it seems as if some of us are being hurt; this is significant. I consider this story about bus transport a disturbing matter.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I assume the hon member for Mamre wishes to object because the hon member for Macassar said it seemed as if some members were being hurt. He was not referring specifically to the hon member for Mamre.

Mr Chairman, I objected to what the hon member said as I felt his words were directed at me.

Order! No, there was nothing unparliamentary in what the hon member for Macassar said. The hon member may proceed.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I am warning the hon member for Mamre for the second time. The hon member for Macassar may proceed.

Sir, we did not expect this Part Appropriation to be exceptionally high—especially not in the light of the hon the State President’s announcement that public servants and teachers would not be granted any salary increases this year. Nevertheless I listened to what he said regarding the fact that there would be certain professional specifications and I sat there that day secretly hoping that the hon the State President was possibly referring to the Cinderellas in education in this respect, as they have so often been referred to in this House. At this stage they may also be described as people with specific professional specifications. They have already been called Cinderellas and I want to request the hon the Minister to make an attempt to lighten their burden somewhat. Today these poor teachers, male and female, have to struggle on their own to solve problems. Their interests have to be seen to. They could be encouraged and assisted because they are definitely not being treated fairly.

Let us leave the story about the buses at that for the time being. I see the hon the Minister has taken notes; I am convinced he will go into the matter.

I want to come back to the amount appropriated for local government, housing and agriculture. I am afraid I have to complain again unfortunately. If we make R148 million available to the department of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, I want to know how much of this money will be used. How many hon members sitting here have completed their planning in their constituencies? When the hon the Minister of Finance makes his Main Budget speech, are we again going to be faced with a situation in which hon members blame “verkrampte” local authorities because the work has not yet been done? Hon members should start realising that they have a responsibility as members. If they had worked over the past three years, the non-application of funds would not have been recorded. I am about to put a strange question, but I want to know whether R148 million is not perhaps too much. The need outside is great, but what good does it do if we bamboozle the world out there with figures but fail to apply the money when it is time to do so? [Interjections.]

There are hon members who chat happily while others are making their speeches. I am referring especially to the hon member for Northern Cape who reminds me of the hon member for Fish River today. [Interjections.]

Order! As soon as I have smoothed ruffled feelings, the hon member for Northern Cape fans the flames again!

Sir, I do not want to come to the House again to discover that allocated funds have not been used. In that case I want to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget in good time not to give any money for five years to a local authority which has not spent money allocated to it by the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. Hon members of Parliament will then realise that provision will not be made for them in the Budget until such time as they have done their work outside.

It may sound like boasting, but the hon the Minister could far rather give the money remaining at the end of the financial year to my constituency. My constituency is the first and only one in which the total structural plan of the so-called Coloured towns has already been approved by the Administrator. Any amount the hon the Minister may allocate to my constituency will be spent properly. The projects are ready; we are merely waiting for money.

That is a lie. Your town is not the only one!

Mr Chairman, I object. The hon member for Genadendal said I was telling a lie.

Order! Did the hon member say that?

Sir, I said he was telling a lie if he claimed his town was the only one in respect of which structural plans had already been approved! That is not the only town.

Order! It is perhaps not the only town but an hon member’s word has to be accepted here.

Sir, I was talking about towns. [Interjections.]

Instead of proceeding with his speech, the hon member for Macassar lends an ear here, there and everywhere. He must proceed with his speech.

Sir, when one differs with a person and the matter is put right, one should congratulate such a person. In 1985 I complained to the hon the Minister about certain school fences which were in a dreadful condition. It took quite some time but I can understand this. Perhaps funds were not available, but I think now is the time to say to the hon the Minister: Continue in this way!

When one looks at education, one has to bear in mind that the Department of Education and Culture and the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture are interdependent. The amount of R148 million is therefore not a great deal if one remembers that there are schools which should have been built long ago. If one thinks of how many additional mobile units should already have been supplied, the sum is a pittance. It could have been far higher, because almost every new school that is opened is overcrowded from the first day.

If one examines the budget for the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, and bears in mind that it is the old Department of Community Development which has to carry out the work, we shall have to take giant strides to keep pace with development out there in the future. An amount appears in the future Part Appropriation, but it will have to be three times as high as a number of schools have to be erected in Blue Downs. Just think of all the facilities which have to be created. Provision has not even been made for proper creches. When the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives receives applications for subsidies, one hears every conceivable excuse. Subsidies are simply not granted. Is it not because the trifling amount is already too little? Is an excuse not merely being sought?

I believe the time has come to make a thorough survey to establish the actual needs as regards pre-primary schools. Socio-economic conditions frequently oblige both parents to work. There should not be complaints afterwards that children have become “knock-outs” because they spend more than 12 hours a day without supervision.

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

I withdraw “knockout”. I mean “drop-out”. [Interjections.] I shall withdraw the words “knock-out” and “dropout”.

Order! The hon member may use the word “drop-out”, but not “knock-out”.

Sir, I withdraw “knockout”. In Afrikaans the word is actually “skarminkel”.

I wish to repeat my request that our Department of Health Services and Welfare should keep a closer watch over the situation. We cannot allocate so much money to this department if it supports certain church societies, however. We cannot do this if an old age home at Upington is being so heavily subsidised by the hon the Minister’s department. The matter is being dealt with on a monopoly basis by one person who is making a church affair of it. I also belong to a church and I suppose I should ask my church to erect a home for the aged as soon as possible so that one may reap the benefit. I cannot understand, however, how the director of an old age home can earn R45 000 per annum when he already receives free accommodation. Proof of this will be submitted to you, Mr Chairman. Unfortunately I do not want to mention names at this stage. I am aware that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare’s department is conducting an investigation, but I should like to request that not all of the R180 million should be allocated to Upington. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, our party is committed to the upliftment of our community in the field of education, as well as socio-economically. In order to work towards this goal we require every available monetary means. We are disappointed in what we are receiving. However, who but the NP Government is to blame for our predicament?

Our communities, particularly in the rural areas, have been and still are the most neglected. We have been denied much, and we are not satisfied with or enthusiastic about the money allocated to our House for our needs. We should take what we can get and continually ask for more and more, until all groups are equal, particularly those who receive even less than us at the moment.

We express our appreciation and gratitude to our hon Minister who, no doubt, has made every effort to work towards increases and satisfy the requests and needs of every department of this House. After listening to the hon the State President’s address at the opening of Parliament in which he called for a tightening of belts, I think we should respect the hon the Minister of the Budget for the fact that he managed to get more than peanuts for us in this Part Appropriation Bill.

Sir, should we reject what we have received, it would mean that during the interim period before the Main Budget, many of our people would be denied that to which they are entitled. The Official Opposition, a bunch of confused people, will no doubt oppose this Bill and find ways and means to reject it for the sake of publicity, not caring a hoot about the community. However, having heard what a mess they made of their own inaugural conference, one should perhaps ask how responsible they are. The name of their party should in fact be the United Confused Party. [Interjections.] I do not want to read out the particulars of that party’s inaugural conference.

In conclusion, Sir, we in this House support the hon the Minister of the Budget and also put a stamp of approval on this Part Appropriation Bill as presented to us by him.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry to disappoint the hon member for Silvertown. He became quite prophetic a few minutes ago, but his prophecy turned out to be very short-lived, because it is false.

I want to make a statement here today. I believe there are some malicious members of the Press who suggested that I have the intention of joining the PFP. I have never had nor do I have now any intention of joining the PFP, and I do not think I will ever have any such intention. [Interjections.]

I want to address the hon the Minister on a few aspects. The present flood damage we are experiencing, particularly in the Douglas area and in the Orange Free State, was probably not foreseen by the hon the Minister and his department. I sincerely hope, however, that he and his department will make every effort to ensure that those unfortunate people in Douglas, Warrenton and elsewhere in the Northern Cape who have lost their homes will have them replaced as speedily as possible. I think the House of Delegates has set an example to us. When certain homes were destroyed their administration saw to it that people could be accommodated in homes that had been rebuilt within three weeks. I do hope that the hon the Minister’s department will negotiate at the highest level so that these unfortunate people can be accommodated as speedily as possible.

I want to address myself to the sections concerning the acquisition of land. Those hon members who know East London will know that we are completely saturated as far as housing is concerned. We have a waiting list in excess of 1 400 families presently awaiting accommodation. At a joint meeting of everybody concerned in the area it was basically agreed upon that the area between the airport and the sea in the direction of Cove Ridge would be the natural extension of any area for the future housing needs of the various communities. I notice that no money has been appropriated in the hon the Minister’s Budget for the acquisition of the land. That land basically consists of a number of smallholdings, and various State departments have been dragging their feet on this matter for more than a year. In the meantime our people and others have to sit in backroom shanties.

You are not talking about yourself now.

Please, I am talking about those people’s housing needs. The Coloured people are not the only ones who are experiencing a housing shortage. Therefore, this is not only an own affair.

†We urgently need the land which formerly belonged to Iscor and which is valued at approximately R3 million. That land must be acquired as well as the land in the Cove Ridge area so that we can bring relief to those people. In the area I come from it would appear that the only way to obtain results is to set certain buildings alight. Let us once and for all waylay that attitude and let the necessary land be acquired so that we can have these homes built.

I also want to address the hon the Minister today on the question of legal costs. He must be honest with us today and tell us how much the Department of Education and Culture in particular has had to pay in legal costs for various actions which were instituted against either his department or that of the Minister of Education and Culture. Have we made provision for these legal costs in any of the budgets before us? He must take us into his confidence and state exactly how much these actions have cost us.

The other aspect on which I want to address the hon the Minister is the provision of housing and the building of schools. In his short budget speech he did not mention what he hoped to cover. Many of us, when we look at the budget as it was presented by the Auditor-General, just notice figures and broad headings. We expected the hon the Minister to go into greater detail than he did this afternoon. I hope that when he replies to this debate, he will specify and spell out how the R148 million will be spent as far as housing is concerned. Which particular areas have been earmarked to receive the bulk of this money?

Blue Downs is but a drop in the ocean and relates only to the Cape Town area. However, there is a massive need for approximately 90 000 to 100 000 homes throughout the rest of South Africa. In some areas people have been on the waiting list since 1970. When will homes be built for those people? Can the hon the Minister spell out how money will be allocated?

Now that the hon the Minister has his own law, he must spell out on what he is going to spend the amount of R180 000 that was budgeted for health services. He must take us into his confidence. He must not give us blank figures, because we want to know how the money is going to be spent.

I shall tell you.

That hon Minister’s turn will come; I am addressing the hon the Minister of the Budget. We are addressing him in a civilised manner.

Order! The hon member need not react to that interjection.

If the hon the Minister of the Budget can take us into his confidence, many of the speeches made here today will not be necessary.

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate. I have taken part in discussions on the Part Appropriation of our hon Minister since the institution of the tricameral system. I have always participated in the hope that I would obtain more for the voters I represent than they feel entitled to.

Right at the outset I want to say I am concerned. The hon member for Macassar made certain statements: He said he had heard people talking about “Hotnot” Ministers. It is dangerous if own affairs strikes out in a direction in which our hon Minister is referred to as a “Hotnot” Minister. I hope the matter will be put right as soon as possible.

Sir, before getting to the needs of my constituency, I wish to appeal to you to permit me to unburden myself a little. There are certain matters I wish to bring home to my hon colleagues. It is no secret that the LP has always striven for the following objects: The party has always striven for active loyalty toward the cause of our people. It has also continually striven for the promotion of the human dignity of all South Africans, the rejection of all forms of discrimination in the clear repudiation of the system of cheap labour and for the institution of a national economy which will lead to a united South Africa. Hon members will agree with me that a long road lies ahead to change the thinking of Whites in the country.

We saw that yesterday.

I thank my hon leader.

We have to start seeing one another as South Africans—not as Coloureds, Whites or Indians. We of the LP—we have set ourselves this as an objective—wish to bring these matters about in a peaceful way. This is why we are still participating in the system. I said in a previous debate in the House that I did not know where I stood and my voters had to tell me what to do and how far I still had to go. I frequently find myself in a cul-de-sac.

Is it not a fact that our boys fight shoulder to shoulder on our borders against people who are a threat to our country? Is it not a fact that we are still being reminded of our colour on some beaches and at other places? I am standing here today and the reality is that I am still regarded as a non-White. The hon the Minister who stood in that seat yesterday again pointed out to us that we were merely Coloureds—nothing else. Once again our human dignity is of no significance to certain people.

If we wish to mean something to South Africa, the country we all continue to love, we have to respect one another’s human dignity more.

The pace of reform will have to change greatly. It is of no avail to peer over our shoulders round every corner to see where the ANC or AWB stands. No, Sir, a Black middle class will have to be created and all discrimination removed, including the Group Areas Act.

As far as I am concerned, the CP is no long-term threat to us. It is a threat in the short term but I would not pay much attention to the CP if I were hon members. I would take even less notice of the CP if I were the State President. The hon the State President should merely continue doing those things he wishes to do and he will see himself getting the support of the people he benefits.

Before referring to the financial problems of my constituency, I want to say I hope the hon the State President will stop doing certain things now. I want to remind him of the saying that one should not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I am afraid—I hope my hon leader will pardon me—that at this moment it is the LP and our hon leader who represent the goose that lays the golden eggs; in other words no negotiation will be possible in South Africa without the co-operation of the hon leader of the LP and his supporters. The LP is committed to certain matters and that commitment will be carried out chapter and verse.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he cannot use his influence to make money available for building a road approximately 8 kilometres long over the mountain between McGregor and Greyton. This would mean a great deal to our people who have problems and it would also be a strong boost to our economy which is bleeding to death. It is important that we request these items here. Although we are conducting a debate on own affairs, I have said I am here because I hope to obtain something for the people I represent here.

We should also be very pleased if the hon the Minister could assist us in acquiring funds for the following projects. I want to mention them here now. The hon member for Macassar said hon members of Parliament should do their homework and state their projects. That is exactly what I have done here from time to time. As regards water supply and sewerage, hon members will recall that I have requested year after year that the pail system be discontinued at De Doorns. I ask again that more funds be voted immediately for the upgrading of the sewerage system on which a start has been made at De Doorns. I am grateful for funds which have already been made available.

I also wish to request that money be made available for the upgrading of existing dwellings at De Doorns. In addition my request covers funds to be made available for 258 subeconomic houses. More than a year ago an application was made for the building of a community hall at De Doorns, but not much has come of this to date. I sincerely request that our appeals be noted. Perhaps we do not all convey our messages in the same way. Some people understand, but others do not; some take an interest, but others do not. An hon member with a seat in this House, however, has been elected to his seat by his voters and it is only right that he should champion the cause of his people here. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. [Interjections.] We are in desperate need of that community hall at De Doorns. We have no such hall at De Doorns nor at McGregor. That is why I feel these matters should be examined if we hope to accomplish something for the community.

I wish to request in addition that funds be made available for job creation at De Doorns—I shall mention my villages one by one. These funds I am requesting for job creation must be used for those people who are not artisans or skilled hands. Those funds must be applied for people who work in the vineyards to make a living, but are unemployed as soon as the grapes have all been pressed. We want to request these funds to create jobs for those people who have no trade or skill. The funds are for those people who have worked in the vineyards to make a living but who are left jobless once the grapes have been pressed. I want to appeal for more funds to be made available to create work for these people to give them something to do in order to survive.

I want to refer to Robertson too and express my thanks to whoever was responsible for the funds that were made available for our swimming pool. The community is overjoyed at the Olympic standard pool and it is used a great deal. I wish to ask, however, whether the hon the Minister cannot help the people of Robertson with funds for the following projects: Extensions to the little place called Dorpsig in my constituency; the upgrading of services in Extension 15, one of the new extensions we wish to develop further; extension of sewerage and water reticulation works in all Coloured areas and a connecting road to Extension 15. Funds are also required for the construction of 150 economic houses. I also want to request an investigation into the purchase of the farms Morgenson and Droë Heuwel as they are adjacent to the Coloured residential area at Robertson.

In addition I wish to refer to Ashton and ask the hon the Minister to make funds available for the following projects: R150 000 for the completion of the existing subeconomic houses; R160 000 for the erection of 20 subeconomic houses; R160 000 for the upgrading of our community hall and a further R60 000 for tarring a street at Ashton. I also wish to ask the hon the Minister whether he can tell me if parity is still to be instituted for all public servants in his department this year. Although public servants are not going to receive increases this year, parity does not yet exist in certain sections of his department. I am speaking under correction but, unless I am wrong, we heard last year that full parity would be instituted this year. I wonder whether the hon the Minister can tell us whether this is actually the case.

Order! Before I call on the next hon member to speak, I want to ask hon members to lower their voices.

Sir, I am very grateful for the opportunity of participating in the debate. People seem to be after my blood in the House but I shall be a very good boy while I am speaking. I hope to be able to elicit debate, but also to rely on the necessary protection.

On behalf of the LP, the party which has done most for its people in the history of the country, I should like to read the following statement: The Labour Party of South Africa expresses its sympathy with those who have lost loved ones in the Oshakati bombing incident. This party deplores this cowardly deed. It provides further proof of the high price our country has to pay for apartheid. The Labour Party wishes to state unequivocally that violence is meaningless as a solution to the South African problem. It proves once again that the Government will have to come up with vigorous reform politics now, more than ever.

If we view the most recent incidents on the African continent, the fact is once again borne out that we at the southern tip of Africa stand alone in the struggle against oppression and for freedom and peace. There seems to me to be a wish among the great powers of the Western world that this country, which stands for peace in the southern hemisphere, should be forced to the type of action which is sometimes regarded as destabilising in the southern region. It is true that world powers are not doing their duty toward us and our endeavour to bring about peace on this continent. An effort is actually being made to a great degree to thrust the South African question more toward a military sphere and, if that happens, nobody but the inhabitants of this country will suffer the consequences. I therefore wish to appeal to neighbouring states to take note of the hon the State President’s request for a conference to be held to enable us to solve our problems ourselves and so make it unnecessary for innocent people to lose their lives because of senseless deeds.

It is a pity that we are dealing with neighbouring states which frequently fashion their survival according to the South African economy and which are dependent upon our transport, services, labour and funds to survive, but do not recognise the role this country plays regarding their economic growth.

I do not want to deviate unnecessarily from the subject of this speech, but I wish to request the hon member for Macassar, a member in the ranks of the Official Opposition, not always to act as an agent for another bus company here. I should like to ask him to try to centre the debate on the interests of all bus companies. I would not presume to act as an agent for the Botha bus service or anybody else here, but I want to say I consider it unreasonable of him to drag in the Botha bus service whenever he holds the floor and discusses bus transport. Nobody intervenes to put in a good word for the Botha bus service. I do not regard the point at issue to be whether it is a White service or another—I merely despise his conduct as I feel he is abusing his right by frequently singling out one company in Parliament. He knows there are other companies which are also guilty of malpractice, but he tries to smooth that over.

I wish to return to the question of my conduct here in the House. I regret that the presiding officer frequently has to reprimand me, but I hope …

Order! The hon member for Mamre will have to be very careful. By chance I listened to the hon member’s speech over the monitor. I try to be as fair as possible. If any hon member has any objection to the way in which I act, he should consult the Standing Rules and Orders for guidance. The hon member for Mamre may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I have no objection to the way in which you act.

Order! If the hon member has no objection, he is not to criticise my action or the rulings I give. He now has the opportunity of replying to what the hon member for Macassar said.

Sir, I repeat, I am sorry if I create problems in the House. I apologise.

Order! The hon member does not create problems. I am here to see that the rules are obeyed, regardless of person. If the hon member is dissatisfied with my ruling, he must say so. He must not criticise my action here in a speech. I cannot reply to his criticism. If he does not like my ruling, he may look up the Standing Rules and Orders to see what he may do about it.

Thank you very much, Sir. I return to the hon the Minister’s budget. I want to ask him to see whether we cannot economise more on services we furnish at schools. I am thinking in particular of renovation to school grounds. I should like to suggest that schools be encouraged to develop and renovate their own playgrounds and sports fields. The hon the Minister could then supplement their school funds with a certain percentage of the money saved on awarding contracts. It should provide great motivation to schools to be personally involved in beautifying their school grounds. This would also generate more pride among scholars.

I am able to speak on this from experience. I used to be the principal of a school at Belhar and I planted lawns at the school myself. I saved the department more than R60 000. I think it would be only fair if that school could be compensated in some way for the trouble and effort the children expended there. When pupils beautify their school grounds themselves, they will develop a feeling of pride.

Our department should also see whether we cannot use more contracts at schools where work has to be carried out as a means of job creation. The small man who is unemployed will be able to benefit more from such contracts which are awarded. They are often awarded to contractors who sit in offices and this does not provide more work. I am thinking, for instance, of the repairs to fences, the painting of schools and numerous small jobs for which our people must surely be suitable.

I want to address a further important point in the Department of Education and Culture in the House of Representatives. At this time of year one finds that hundreds of students who have just completed their studies cannot be appointed to posts—purely because school principals have the right to make temporary appointments. They then fall back on retired teachers who were appointed for a period of three months the previous year. If a post cannot be filled during the first three months of the year, they receive an additional appointment for the rest of the year.

I think the hon the Minister should look into this. Retired teachers should not be used in the first quarter. This will create vacant posts at schools which may be filled by students who have recently graduated. Unemployment among postgraduate students has to be relieved. The hon the Minister could well investigate the possibility of retiring female teachers at an earlier age. Many such teachers no longer have the physical ability to cope with their classes during their last years. It is this section of the teaching corps in particular which has to work very hard during the first years. They are frequently the people who have to cope with large classes or kindergarten classes—and hon members can imagine what an effort this must require. In the last five years of their teaching career they also have difficulty in fulfilling their duties. They have to do this or fail to qualify for a pension.

I really want us to examine the situation of women over the age of 55 and ease their lot. We should give them the choice of retiring at 55 and buying back the next five years in which they do not teach in order to qualify for their pensions.

I wish to request the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to launching a campaign in his department aimed at the economic development of our own people. Surely this is not a question of development of own affairs. We are here to promote the case of our people and I am sorry to see many of our people unable to get off the ground economically in this difficult time, because they may not have the necessary capital, insurance or bank guarantees. That is why I should like to see an effort made by our department to develop and assist people economically.

It is such a pity that we do not address the problem of disinvestment against South Africa every day. We come here and sometimes tackle the wrong Minister or the man bringing good tidings. In many respects the opposition does not succeed in applying itself to the problems of disinvestment, but prefers to trounce the bearer of the message.

I hope the hon the Minister will be able to find the funds he has requested today to carry out his work because this proves once again that the story in the newspapers that funds were not used was totally distorted. If there had been surplus funds, surely it would have been unnecessary to request additional funds here.

Mr Chairman, I intend speaking only briefly, but first I want to mention that our hon Ministers are held in the greatest regard and respect. I have never heard anybody referring to our hon Ministers as “Hotnot” Ministers. On the contrary, gratitude is expressed to the hon the Minister of the Budget, for example, for the 10 mobile classrooms erected at Hanover. Hon members know that we had an uphill struggle when we had to work through a department and officials. We then approached the hon the Minister, the so-called “Hotnot” Minister, and Hanover received 10 mobile classrooms within one week. The White man could not do this but our hon Minister did it.

Recently there were extensive evictions at De Aar, to such an extent that I had to come and talk to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. This was the same afternoon he returned from the Far East. He gave immediate instructions for those evictions at De Aar to be stopped and word was passed from the office of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare that people who had become unemployed owing to economic conditions were to apply for assistance via his department. I ask hon members: Can a “Hotnot” Minister do such things? They are regarded only with respect and appreciation.

I want to remind hon members of the R10 000 donated to the Natal Flood Disaster Fund by the House of Representatives as well as the LP’s donation of R10 000. These are acts which should be noted.

There is one more matter which I should like to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention. It involves a small rural area known as Gesenskraal about 10 kilometres outside Britstown. The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development and I were invited there on 23 October 1987. The Water Board invited a so-called “Hotnot” Minister and a “Hotnot” MP! This shows what confidence they have in us.

Order! The hon member should say “so-called” for Hansard purposes.

I am saying “so-called”, Sir. This shows what confidence these people have in us. We were treated with the greatest respect and regard.

The school at Gesenskraal accommodates 80 pupils in two classrooms. The building is in a very poor condition and the classrooms are divided by means of a curtain. The wooden floor and the curtain make teaching so difficult that the teachers have to take turns to speak. There is another classroom in an old church building. This building is also very dilapidated. The toilet facilities there are most inconvenient and do not comply with hygienic requirements. There is also a serious water problem which was investigated in the past by a Mr N Heyns. He is a health inspector of the Department of National Health and Population Development. He compiled a report on conditions there. There is no drinking water at the school, for instance, and no funds to sink a borehole. The teachers and children have to carry water from their houses and this has to last them until school closes.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he could perhaps send four mobile classrooms to Gesenskraal. This matter has already been reported to the regional office at Middelburg, but nothing has been done. That is why I have come to the hon the Minister who is able to deliver classrooms so speedily. We should appreciate this.

We should also be grateful if the hon the Minister would investigate the possibility of conveying the children from Gesenskraal to Britstown. We have applied for the erection of a hostel at Britstown but no funds are available.

A further request to the hon the Minister is to spare a thought for the labourers at our schools. Can those who clean our schools not be granted a small increase this year?

I respectfully appeal to the hon the Minister to attend to the problems of Gesenskraal immediately.

Mr Chairman, you know what my position is today. It was very tragic for me to lose my life-long companion with whom I shared 43 years.

What hurts even more, however, is the big shock I got on 9 February after almost four years in the House. The shock was so great that I had to see a doctor. My nerves could not accept what had happened. Last year I made a speech here in connection with transport affairs. The hon the Chairman told me he would never let me speak again, because I had mentioned something very strange. The great shock to which I referred was the all-time low reached in the no-confidence debate. I have always had the greatest respect for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Last year I said he was my hero, because his speeches were always excellent. To my disappointment, however, I was witness to how low he had sunk when he made personal attacks on people in the House. As a Christian I do not want to make personal attacks on people, but rather want to bring them to their senses and make them aware of the fact that we are here to put our case. I heard hon members putting the case of their constituencies today. Perhaps it is not necessary for me to plead as much as they do, because I saw to it that I did my best for my people before I came to this House.

I am in a very awkward position in that I have to act as mother and father. I am a Labourite and belong to the LP, and therefore my voters lack nothing. I make sure that by eight o’clock every morning I am at an office where I meet my voters. Lawyers attack me on the telephone. I squash them to a pulp! I belong to the LP which believes that we must work for our people.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not here today. I am very sorry about that, because I had hoped he would be here. I am fond of him. I am very fond of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. In my opinion, however, his personal attacks on people were the dirtiest and lowest thing he could have done.

Order! The hon member must come back to the legislation under discussion. The hon member may discuss anything, but I feel we must drop the personal attacks. The hon member used the word “dirty” and he must please withdraw it.

If it is a bad word, I withdraw it, Sir. No-one could have sunk lower than that, however. To think that a leader, who has to lead other people, could attack one and all in that way! Since I began working for my people in 1960, I have never denigrated anyone in that way. We are here to put our people’s case. Even if we differ, we must always treat one another with respect.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is an embittered man. I am going to tell hon members this afternoon why I say that. He is embittered because my hon leader has great respect for him. I do not know whether or not he is aware of that. On three occasions my leader—for whom I have great respect, even if we differ sometimes, in which case I go to his office to discuss the matter with him, because I am a man who can stand on my own feet—addressed the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and told him he had all the characteristics a leader needs, but he should change his lifestyle. The three occasions I am referring to were in the Western Transvaal, Bloemfontein and Kimberley and I was present at all three. I think that is rather sad.

You will forgive me for giving vent to my feelings, Sir, but it makes me sad to think that when he was on our side, he always spoke about Jonas, but now that he is on the opposite side, he never even mentions Jonas. That is really not very nice, Sir.

I want to tell hon members what that present hon Leader of the Official Opposition told us when he addressed those of us who were candidates in Kimberley in 1983. I want to remind him that one’s “yes” must be yes and that one’s “no” must be no. He stood on the stage with this document I have in my hand and which I signed—the document in terms of which I pay my pledge to the LP. While the leaders were still questioning candidates, this present hon Leader of the Official Opposition stood on the stage—I shall never forget it as long as I live—and addressed the people. Passionately and enthusiastically, in a bellowing voice and waving his hands, he said— at least, this is how I remember his words:

Where is the man who said that to us now? He is on the opposite side of the House. Those hon members talk about divide and rule, Sir, but “divide and rule” is sitting there with them. We should have been one party today. We should have been able to show the Whites “that we are one in Christ and in all”! [Interjections.] That is what we should have been today. When one judges other people, however, one is judged oneself. Look at that hon member today— Leader of the Official Opposition! He is embittered. Why? It is the result of his own conduct. When I was sitting in front of the stage—I felt so small—he addressed me:

I challenge the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Whether he is a great leader, like the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the other leaders of the LP, or is as small as Oom Hansie—I, who am a great leader in my own way—he will resign his seat. [Interjections.] If he resigns I shall believe he is a leader! Let him stand against us then.

I want to take this matter further. When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was still on this side of the House, he denigrated the teachers. He and his whole party are bankrupt now, however. Whether they want to admit that or not, Sir, they are bankrupt. Yet they come and tell us we are bankrupt. I shall tell hon members why I say they are bankrupt. When that hon Leader of the Official Opposition was sitting on this side of the House, he could not say enough about Jonas and he denigrated the teachers. Now that he is on that side of the House, however, the teachers are wonderful all of a sudden. I wonder whether his party is so bankrupt that they are trying to attract the teachers’ votes? I can tell him now that the teachers are not going to vote for them. I have great respect for the hon the Minister whom I am pointing at. In fact, I have great respect for all the leaders of the LP. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition maintained that we did not allocate houses to people who did not belong to the LP. No, Sir, we are honest and sincere, and our enemies get houses too. When one pages through Die Tygerburger, one wonders if that hon Leader of the Official Opposition can be a leader like the leaders of the LP.

I want to elaborate on my argument. All of a sudden the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is praising the teachers. I do not praise teachers. If a teacher is bad at his job, I say so; if he is good, I say so. I do not try to get the teachers’ votes. My people live on the Cape Flats, and I want to ensure that they are educated so that they can get out of the quagmire they are caught up in. I represent them here so that they can out of that quagmire that the Whites of South Africa, and no-one else, have pushed them into. I want them to get out of there so that they can see that we are human too.

It is a disgrace, Sir, and I hope the hon the Minister is taking cognisance of what I am saying. I have sent all the letters I have here to him. I want the hon the Minister to take quick action to solve the problem. He praised the teachers a great deal, but I do not praise any teacher if he is not a good teacher. I do not keep company with the CPTU. They do not come near me. I do not want to see them or talk to them.

I have a letter here which I wrote to the hon the Minister after two young boys from my constituency had come to me. They wanted assistance in applying for bursaries to study at the University of Cape Town. Every day they were told to wait a little longer because the forms were on their way. When they eventually received the forms, filled them in and sent them off, it was only to hear that their applications were too late. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether we can tolerate such teachers and headmasters in our schools. The two boys are obedient South African citizens, but their bursaries were held back because they wanted to study at the University of Cape Town in fields that could mean a great deal to them. It was not just a question of becoming teachers as far as they were concerned. These two boys could get no assistance from the CPTU, and today I appeal to the hon the Minister—I have sent him the letters—that if there is not enough money, the hon the Ministers of the LP must go to the hon the State President, because money must be found for those two boys before March this year. I shall even go to the hon the State President with them. We must do this to show that the CPTU teachers are inciting our children against the LP. The LP wants to do upliftment work among our people, but they are pushing the people even further into the quagmire. It is no wonder our children cannot succeed at school, because these teachers get thousands of rands every month, but do not mention that to the children. They keep saying that they are living under the breadline. That is a disgrace!

Order! Will the hon member please lower his voice a little?

These things make me very angry, because I love my people. As a member of the LP I do everything I can, but this is a mean and underhand thing to do. It is just like the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, mean and underhand. The teachers are mean and underhand as well.

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

Sir, if it is wrong to use it, I withdraw the word.

Order! Yes, it is wrong. The hon member must please calm down. I know him, and know he is not well. The hon member must please lower his voice and calm down. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, these two boys must be helped. They come to me every evening, and the hon the Minister must please forgive me, but I am a man who writes nice letters only up to a point. After that I take drastic action, whether I incur hostility or not. I do this for the sake of the upliftment of my people. The UDF, who is so friendly with the CPTU, told our children “liberation before education”, but if liberation takes place tomorrow, we shall have no educated people. These children want to study engineering, a field in which employment opportunities are not abundant, but they are being held back. I appeal to the hon the Minister to help those children, because if we do, we shall get more children in our constituencies on our side. The hon the Minister will remember that children were locked up unnecessarily during the unrest.

That hon member of the Official Opposition is boasting a great deal—he denigrated us the other day and tried to put us in an unfavourable light— but I went to Victor Verster, Sir; I went to Bellville to talk about these children who had been picked up. The lieutenant in command gave me a look and we talked and talked. He had all kinds of excuses. After a while he left, but he returned—I had drawn up my papers in triplicate in my attempt to get the children back—and told me: “Mr Christians, go and fetch the children, because you would not fetch children who throw stones.” I still thought I would have to submit my papers, but he said: “Put them in your pocket. Go and fetch the children.”

That is leadership, Sir. That is how one negotiates and inspires respect, without oppressing others. Sir, I say it is a disgrace that such things take place in our community, and that our LP is denigrated time after time. In the four years since we have been here, however, that leadership has come to the fore. We may not all be equally strong, or clever or hard-working, but every MP in our party does something to promote the cause of our people. [Interjections.] What is more, we members of the LP are in this House every day, but the hon members of the opposition parties are here only when they want to cause some or other scandal or want to put us in an unfavourable light; otherwise one never sees them. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Ravensmead was referring to the party and not to individuals. The hon member for Newclare must please return to his seat before the hon member for Ravensmead continues his speech.

Sir, I now come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I am fond of him and should like to talk to him. I want him to listen to what I am saying. He must go back to the days when good work was done. When I went to Johannesburg once, I made a prediction, and if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not know that Oom Hansie is known throughout the country, he will hear it today. I had never been in Johannesburg before that day. Previously I had always gone to Pretoria directly from the airport. That evening—it was during the by-election, and our leaders spoke so well—I was walking in the street when someone shouted: “Oom Hansie, Oom Hansie!” I do not know how it was possible for the people there to know me, but all over the people know me. They asked me something that I could not really reply to, but I did try. They said we had come to have a meeting there that night to get our LP candidate elected, but they did not think we had any chance of winning. Then they asked why we did not make Mr Rabie a Minister as well. I am not lying, Sir. I told the LP we would not win that seat, because a leader of the Official Opposition cannot become a Minister.

I said the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition could have become a Minister, because he had all the necessary qualities to do so. I shall not go into detail concerning his personal affairs, but I want him to go and sit down and think a little. When one is a leader in one’s community, it is like serving on a church council: One’s light must shine; one must be an example to others, and not walk behind anyone, but in front, so that the people can see one’s light. That is when one is a leader, Sir.

People receive us leaders everywhere. We are not saying we are good people, because no-one on earth is only good. We try, however, to let our light shine so that people can see that we are true leaders. I want to make an appeal in this House today: Even if we are sitting with an opposition party, I want us to take hands. We must not make personal attacks on one another. We must rather help one another so that the hon the State President, the NP and all White South Africans can see how we Coloureds form a unit. By doing this we shall be able to win South Africa for all races and colours.

Hon members must not come and say all kinds of personal things here. We have all had parties together … yes, the hon member is free to say he is tired of my talking. I do not mind. I repeat, if we have held parties together, if we have been naughty together, if we no longer know what to say about the bankruptcy in our parties, we must not make personal remarks. I want to thank the Lord because I do not want to denigrate anyone.

Instead I want to strive to talk about good things. If someone speaks well of something, I support him. It is mean and underhand to denigrate the hon the Leader of the LP in that way.

I want hon members to realise that there is no time for games. The LP has always said it is five to twelve. The hon members of the opposition agreed, but now they say it is quarter past twelve! I cannot understand that! Why not? [Interjections.] No, no. The hon member for Border must not change his tack now. He agreed with us. I want to tell him what a leader is. A leader is a man with a principle, and he begins and ends at the same place—even if he fights until blood is drawn, even if he has to fix things again afterwards. That is a leader!

There are many people today who sow discord. That is one of the weak points we Coloureds have. We are not man enough any more. We are not strong enough any more. We do not have enough good leaders. A leader is not made; a leader is born! A leader who is made is like paper blowing around in the wind. A born leader has a principle, and he ends where he has begun. He rectifies things on the inside. He is not servile. That is a real leader.

I hope the hon members of the opposition have listened to what I have said. I hope it will bring them to their senses so that we can co-operate. We must keep our true objective in mind, viz our people. We must engage in upliftment work so that we can get somewhere. When we walk out of here one day, it must be with pride. We must not leave here as embittered people. We must shake one another’s hands and say: We co-operated.

Mr Chairman, as a colleague, friend and fellow committee member of the late Mr M R E Lewis, I believe it is fitting to express my sympathy with his family at this time. I want to associate myself fully with what the hon leader of the LP said here this afternoon. His death was a shock to all of us. We were involved with important legislation in the education committee. Mr Lewis’ contribution there was of great value.

It is also appropriate to discuss South Africa at this time. There are people from my area who are mourning, people who have suffered great losses—also loss of life—as a result of the flood that has devastated the Free State. I want to express my sympathy with everyone in the Free State and with everyone who has suffered losses.

South Africa is shrouded in darkness at the moment. People are counting their losses. We were deeply moved by the man in Ladysmith who told a TV spokesman: “I have lost my wife, my children, my friend and all my possessions. What I am wearing is all I possess.” Our hearts went out to him. I believe that in these days we shall have to contribute our share, not only in words, but in deeds, to help our people there.

I believe this is also an appropriate time to thank the Defence Force and everyone who granted assistance when the emergency was at its worst, and everyone who is still granting assistance. All the reports from the Free State attest to heroic deeds that were performed to save our people from the flood and from the jaws of death. Our thanks go to those people.

I now want to come back to the Appropriation Bill. I want to give my full support to the budget submitted by the hon Minister this afternoon. The Part Appropriation which we are going to need so desperately during the next four months will have to be increased in some or other way as a result of the flood. Funds will have to be found somewhere to set the people who have suffered great losses on their feet once again.

In his opening address the hon the State President presented a package in which economising was the key word. The objective of this economising is to make us enter the future with greater confidence. I believe that when the Government economises, one expects the private sector and the individual to economise as well. That is why everyone in this country is being asked to make greater sacrifices. Everyone will have to make sacrifices in order to set the country on its feet once again. We also expect the Government to make sacrifices for this purpose.

As long as the NP Government of this country perseveres in the policy of separateness which is costing the country so much money, however, we cannot but foresee further gloom.

It is with tears in my eyes that I appeal to the NP Government of this country this afternoon to respond to the appeal of people who love this country. We love this country, and have nowhere else to go. I have no Europe to go to, nor do I have a Lesotho, a Swaziland or a Zululand. South Africa is my country; I was born and bred in this country. I was born and bred of the soil of South Africa. I have nowhere else to go. It is love that makes me appeal to the NP Government to do away with those things that cost the country so much money. I am a South African in heart and soul, but I am labelled a “Coloured”.

I now want to refer to what is happening in the Free State with reference to the reports we have been receiving. Telephone links have been cut, but every now and again there is a message from people who can tell us what is happening there and what the conditions of our people there are. We were planning a residential area in Petrusburg, because our people were living in shanties in Blacks’ backyards. There is chaos there at the moment. Those shanties that they had erected have been flattened.

People were involved in a self-help building scheme in Boshoff, and we understand from reports that 40 of those self-built houses have been flattened.

We fear the worst in Koffiefontein, because this town is in a very low-lying area in the Free State. The wall of water is thundering towards this town. We expect the worst. The situation there will also have to receive the attention of the hon the Minister as soon as possible. Things were still going relatively well yesterday, but one fears what might happen.

Mr Speaker, in Rouxville 40 houses in the Black residential area have been flattened, and there are 15 houses in our Coloured residential area which are disintegrating completely.

I want to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the department’s representatives in Bloemfontein who received a message from the top as soon as this state of emergency originated, and entered into communications with the different towns immediately. They asked the town clerks to make an immediate survey of the conditions of our people there. I want to pay tribute to those people. They are working hard to report to the Administration: House of Representatives as quickly as possible on the real conditions in the Free State.

Our people in Edenburg are stranded completely. Like other places, including Bloemfontein and Reddersburg, this town has been cut off completely from the outside world.

Once again we want to thank the Defence Force for the assistance that is being given to our people and for the food and clothing they are being provided with. At the moment urgent attention must be given to the conditions prevailing in those towns. Although the flood damage in Trompsburg was not all that extensive, our people there have also been cut off. The life-blood has been cut off, because they cannot get food from Bloemfontein. There is no road or any other connection between the two places.

Conditions in Zastron are chaotic. A residential area was in the planning stage there too. Our people are living in shacks. They are living in shanties in the backyards of our Black brothers. Some of them are living in rented houses that were built by the Black administration. The conditions there are chaotic. The situation is getting out of hand and things do not look very good.

The water problems in Smithfield were aggravated by the fact that the water-pipes were washed away when the dam walls broke. Smithfield has been cut off completely. The people there need urgent assistance.

One can talk for hours about the conditions prevailing in the Free State and the Northern Cape at the moment. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to try to assist our people as soon as possible. I am grateful for what has already been done by the House of Representatives, the department and the Cabinet committee that was established. We believe that, with the co-operation of our people in the Southern Free State, positive action will now be taken to grant assistance to our people.

I spoke about housing schemes. We were involved in the planning of housing schemes in the Southern Free State. As a result of the flood, attention will have to be given to this matter as soon as possible. We shall have to work hard to provide our people with housing. This does not apply only to our people. When I talk about “our” people, I am referring to all the people of South Africa, irrespective of race, colour or culture, who have suffered losses as a result of the flood.

The Cabinet committee will investigate that.

I am grateful for the assurance that the Cabinet committee will take care of our people. I believe this is the time to work hard to help our people.

Hon members are aware that so far the Southern Free State has not had a clinic or health centre. Plans have been made to build health centres in various places in the Southern Free State. There are no clinics at the moment, however. Sir, you know that the disaster is going to make great demands on doctors and nurses who must help our people. One can expect epidemics to break out after the flood. There will be greater problems and the Department of Health Services and Welfare will have to give positive attention to this. The department must assist in restricting the diseases that may break out as far as possible so that epidemics do not spread throughout South Africa.

The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is aware of the conditions of our people. I hope he will go out of his way to ensure that our people are assisted as soon as possible. We must start the ball rolling. I want to appeal to the respective departments to grant assistance as soon as possible to set our people on their feet. Someone will have to make the sacrifice. We shall have to make the sacrifice, not only in words, but in deeds, to get our people housed and to ensure the smooth running of matters in all the flood-ravaged areas in our country.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Southern Free State has spoken. I am sure hon members will not take it amiss, however, if I am not able to emulate the hon member’s great flood of words. The hon member has a stentorian voice and an ability that few of us in this House can emulate. [Interjections.] It is only the hon members for Southern Free State and Ravensmead who can really do so.

We gladly support the Part Appropriation Bill (House of Representatives) which enables the Administration: House of Representatives to proceed with its normal functions and for which an amount of R761 796 000 must be voted. I shall return to this amount at a later stage, since I first want to address the question of the South African economy. The truth of the matter is, unfortunately, that I cannot divorce our own affairs budget from the economy of the country as a whole.

All hon members know that at the opening of Parliament the hon the State President announced a new economic policy, one widely accepted throughout the country. Hon members know, too, that the hon the Minister of Finance said the present growth rate was 2,6% and that our reserves totalled more than R8 billion. At this stage there is every indication that we can achieve an economic growth rate of approximately 3%. When the economy forges ahead, this means much more money is available, particularly for socio-economic upliftment.

The upswing in our country’s economy is promoted, in particular, by the considerable strength of the balance of payments on the current account. With renewed growth in the value of trade exports and gold bullion, the surplus on the current account was considerably higher last year than in the previous year. Trade exports have increased in volume since last year, something which, in the course of time, will prove to be a mixed blessing for the country. A high gold price is no guarantee that South Africa can keep its head above water for an unspecified period of time in a sea of economic problems. You see, Sir, a healthy and prosperous internal economy is vital to our long-term interests in South Africa.

The improvement in the current account has given the country a measure of elbow-room. The gold and foreign exchange reserves have begun to show an encouraging trend, but still have to be boosted to a comfortable level once more. It is specifically for this reason that the State President’s Economic Advisory Council has such an extensive task in drawing up an economic strategy to ensure the greatest possible long-term economic growth and prosperity for South Africa.

The specific aims of the Economic Advisory Council are to bring about an increase in economic growth, and also an improvement in its job-creation capabilities, so that the rate of unemployment and inflation can be checked over the next five to ten years.

In order to achieve these goals, there are definite prerequisites. There must be more progress on the political front in order to reduce civil unrest, restore business confidence, at least tone down the views about South Africa held by overseas countries and, in particular, improve our access to the international capital market.

This strategy also presupposes an economic system that encourages individual achievement and ability and offers everyone equal opportunities and acceptable conditions in which private initiative and effective competition are, in fact, promoted. It is therefore essential for hon members to support the Bill. In actual fact we should wish the hon the Minister everything of the best in his negotiations prior to the introduction of his Appropriation Bill.

I want to come back to the Bill under discussion.

In his budget speech the hon the Minister pointed out that an amount of R416 972 million was being voted for education and culture. These funds will be employed for salaries, allowances, service bonuses and the purchasing of supplies for schools. I should like to talk about education, but first I want to say thank you and pay attribute. Firstly I want to express a particular word of thanks to the Director-General: House of Representatives. I struggled for a long time to obtain financial assistance for a certain young girl, but within seven days the Director-General was able to help me. For this I shall be eternally grateful to him, and it is with absolute sincerity that I thank Mr McEnery here today.

Last Sunday I attended a joint branch meeting at Klerksdorp where, amongst other things, we discussed the previous day’s regional meeting and other matters. During the meeting I was asked to express a word of thanks to the hon member for Southern Cape. I want to thank him for what he meant to us in the Western Transvaal. Over the years—and I mean since the days of the erstwhile CRC—outlying areas of the Western Transvaal were grossly neglected, but during the past three years we have seen great progress being made there. I did some research and ascertained that during the period from September 1984 to January 1988 a total of 99 brand new educational institutions were erected throughout the country. Some of the buildings have already been completed, whilst others are still being constructed. I crave hon members’ indulgence, because I want to mention all the institutions by name. A total of 36 new secondary schools have been built. They are: The Bloemfontein Secondary School, hostel plus technical; Sarepta Secondary School and hostel; Strand Secondary School and hall; Willowmore Secondary School and hall; Weltevrede Secondary School; Mitchell’s Plain Secondary School, No 10; George Secondary School; Homevale Secondary School—this is a school that is being replaced; Alra Park Secondary School; Upington Secondary School, No 3; Wentworth Secondary School, No 3, plus technical; Victoria West Secondary School and hostel; Atlantis Secondary School, No 4; Mitchell’s Plain Secondary School, No 9, plus technical; St Andrew’s Secondary School, plus technical; Bernadino Heights Secondary School; Klipspruit West Secondary School; Eldorado Park Secondary School; Brent Park Secondary School; Belhar Secondary School, No 4; Eldorado Park Secondary School, No 5; Buffalo Flats Secondary School, No 2, plus technical; Kakamas Secondary School; Ashton Secondary School; Macassar Secondary School, No 2; Ennerdale Secondary School, No 2 plus technical; Emil Weder Secondary School—replacement; Eersterus Secondary School, No 2, plus technical; Wentworth Secondary School, No 4; Alabama Secondary School in my hometown; Swellendam Secondary School; Saxonsea Secondary School; Welkom Secondary School; Disseldorp Secondary School; Erns Holtzapfel Secondary School and the Gerrit du Plessis Secondary School. [Interjections.]

In the following places school clinics were erected: Kimberley, Aldorado Park and Mitchell’s Plain. I want to mention an additional 60 brand new primary schools by name. The following primary schools were built: Belhar Primary School, No 8; Roodepan Primary School, No 4; Wolseley Primary School, No 2; Wellington Primary School; Bissetsdrift Primary School; Chatty Primary School, No 1; Ennerdale Primary School, No 2; Bloemfontein Primary School, No 4; Ennerdale Primary School, No 6; Kosie de Wet Primary School; Uitenhage Primary School, No 6; St Mark’s Primary School; Vredendal Primary School, No 3; Scottsville Primary School—a replacement; Buffalo Flats Primary School, No 2; Lydenburg Primary School; Upington Primary School, No 7; Uitenhage Primary School, No 5; Grootdrink Primary School; Belhar Primary School, No 9; Mitchell’s Plain Primary School, No 52; Mitchell’s Plain Primary School, No 55; Sir Lowry’s Pass Primary School; Montagu Primary School, No 2; Oudtshoorn Primary School, No 5; Cookhouse Primary School; Graaff-Reinet Primary School, No 4, plus hostel; Knysna Primary School, No 3; Zuurbraak Primary School; Louterwater Primary School; Kleinvlei Primary School, No 7; Arniston Primary School; Zherilda Park Primary School; Vryheid Primary School, No 2; Chatty Primary School, No 5; Ceres Primary School, No 4; Eldorado Park Primary School, No 12; Klipspruit West Primary School, No 2; Charleston Hill Primary School; Neilersdrift Primary School; Strandfontein Primary School, No 3; Buffalo Flats Primary School, No 3; Newlands East Primary School, No 3; Ennerdale Primary School, No 10; Esselen Park Primary School—a replacement; McGregor Primary School; Promosa Primary School; G R Harris Primary School—a replacement; Eden Park Primary School, No 3; Montevideo Primary School; Eden Park Primary School, No 3; Bosmont Primary School; Postmasburg Primary School, No 2; Leerkrans Primary School; Temperance Town Primary School; Eerste Rust Primary School; Firgrove Primary School; Ficksburg Primary School; Matatiele Primary School; Cedersberg Primary School.

Sir, that is a mouthful. Let me say that we are very grateful for the major achievements. [Interjections.] In my own hometown the present high school is bursting at the seams, but it began as a prefabricated building. I spent my primary school years there. It was a school initially built for 300 pupils. Today this school accommodates more than 1 000 pupils—and there are only pupils from Std 5 to Std 10. After a goodwill visit by the hon member for Southern Cape, immediate action was taken. The new school is already being built. We in the Western Transvaal are very grateful for that.

I said that I wanted to say something about education. Earlier this year there was great controversy about matriculation results. Everyone blamed someone else for the poor results. I think the time has come, however, for us to examine our own consciences and address our problems in the Coloured community. I should like to quote what the former Minister of Education and Culture said in Caret of 31 January 1988. He is quoted as follows:

Sir, we cannot come closer to the truth than that, because school activities were deliberately disrupted. In the majority of cases the culprits were people in control of affairs in education and responsible for that aspect. [Interjections.] Who are the people who pay the price? The innocent schoolchildren with the teaching staff in the background.

If a child loses one academic year, it means that that child loses one year’s income. School boycotts have never been a solution to political problems in South Africa.

In the same article the Executive Director of Education is quoted as follows:

Sir, we wish them everything of the best in this gigantic effort. They are definitely going to need it. The problem, however, goes further than merely the internal school set-up.

I listened to what hon members were saying in the House. If one actually sums up the situation, one sees that the problem begins at home—not because there is a lack of parental discipline. That is not the case. All of us know that parents want only the best for their children. In the majority of cases, however, parents do not have the means to give their children the best. Here I am referring in particular to socio-economic circumstances. That is why I want to say that hon members should support this Bill. We need that money.

We realise that our people have short-term needs which have to be met. We realise that if our people are not lifted up out of their povertyculture our problems will only reach more alarming proportions. One can put a child into the best school, but if he has to return to a poor environment, this will continue to have a detrimental effect on his education. For this reason let me tell those who are so critical of the House of Representatives: You people are implementing the apartheid ideology by being in Coloured education! They cannot boast that they have no blood on their hands.

Sir, these people spew venom because they themselves have mouths that are tainted. They are as guilty as those whom they call “political appointments”. Have any of them asked themselves whether they qualify for the posts they occupy? That is why I want to request today that all principals of tertiary institutions ask themselves whether they all qualify for the posts in which they have been placed. [Interjections.]

I should like to quote from the presidential address held during the annual congress of the Cape Professional Teachers’ Union in Port Elizabeth. The president of the union said, and I quote:

Those are harsh words, Sir. I quote further:

Sir, surely we know that that is far from the truth. I would have searched my own conscience and asked whether I was not a political appointment. I would have asked: “Do I qualify for the post to which I have been appointed?” [Interjections.] I do not want to take issue with those people. Let me quote from the same issue of Caret of 31 January, and the introductory paragraph puts it so beautifully:

Sir, that is what our Coloured community wants, is it not? That is what South African society as a whole wants. We want to invest our future in our children, because then at least we know that we are assured of a future in South Africa. I quote further from this article:

That is why I want to appeal to our corps of teachers in South Africa. Let us bury the hatchet. Let us confine ourselves to the crux of our function, the child.

The hon the Minister is also making provision for R16,96 million for the Budgetary and Auxiliary Services Vote. These funds will be employed for staff and administrative expenditure, computer services and the payment of tenderers and contractors. I should like to make a request to the hon the Minister, and that is to have the appointment of security guards extended to the Transvaal as well. In the Transvaal we suffer less from school boycotts, but vandalism is a universal phenomenon, and the truth of the matter is unfortunately that the majority of our schools are centrally situated and that the poorer elements specifically use the schools to commit their atrocities. Many of them use school grounds as short cuts, and of course then things go wrong.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to give attention to the establishment of a transport service for our pupils in the far Western Transvaal. The Vaaloewer Primary School at Bloemhof has extended its curricular programme. This year that school will have its first Std 9 class, but the curricular programmes of schools in adjacent towns extend only to Std 5. I am thinking, in particular, of the Geluksoord Primary School in Christiana and of primary schools in Schweizer-Reneke and Wolmaransstad. One should investigate the possibility of introducing a transport service so that the children can return home each day. In the far Western Transvaal our people are dependent on agriculture, and hon members know what has happened to the maize industry in the Western Transvaal in the past few years. There is virtually no maize industry left. Consequently our people there find themselves in wretched circumstances, and it is impossible for parents to keep their children at school beyond Std 5. The Administration: House of Representatives would therefore definitely be furnishing a service if it could institute a transport service there to ensure that our children can attend some or other school.

I also want to address the delicate issue of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. The hon the Minister has voted R148,72 million for this purpose, and according to the budget speech it will be employed for staff expenditure, housing, the provision of office equipment and the purchasing of land for the erection of educational institutions. The hon member for Macassar mentioned money that had not been spent, but unfortunately he did not attend a caucus meeting with us the other evening. There the question of money not employed for projects was sorted out.

[Inaudible.]

I shall inform the hon member in due course. I do not have the time to do so at the moment. This R148 million can, of course, only be effectively employed if it is not used for self-help housing. If we are engaged in upliftment, we can no longer afford to have people living in the poorest quality houses.

Housing is a South African matter, not a Coloured matter. Let us be honest with one another: In the Indian community and in the White community no self-help houses are erected. My saying this must not be held against me tomorrow, but if we are really engaged in upliftment, we must be able to furnish livable homes to the most underpaid of people. We must be able to establish the most needed services for people there so that they can create the proper environment for their school-going children.

I notice in the Gazette of 27 March 1987 that the so-called “marriage portion” has been subdivided as far as community development is concerned. I see that an amount of R32 045 483 has been transferred for the Coloured population group from the Community Development Fund. As far as the National Housing Fund is concerned, an amount of R69 857 350 has been transferred. I was actually shocked to realise how small the amounts were. Upon further inquiry, however, I ascertained that those were not the final amounts and that the matter would be rectified in due course. I hope this money is going to be employed to combat our housing crisis.

In Klerksdorp, where I live, there is a tremendous influx of people, particularly from the Northern Cape. The copper mines are closing down and the people are seeking asylum in the Western Transvaal, particularly in Klerksdorp where they are looking for work on the goldmines. Many of those people are qualified artisans for whom the mining groups make provision as far as housing is concerned. They make no provision for the ordinary handyman, however, and those are the people we are stuck with. They are the ones for whom we have to provide houses. Apart from the people from the Northern Cape, there are also the local inhabitants who are looking for houses. I hope that the loan application submitted by my management committee in Alabama will, in due course, be favourably received by our housing board.

In conclusion I want to refer to the flood damage. The hon member for Free State elaborated on that extensively. Therefore I shall not go into any details. I do not want to play “nuustak”. I really do want to express the hope that the appointed Cabinet committee will treat people without any regard to the colour of their skin, but merely on merit. [Interjections.] Everyone should obtain equal treatment and be given equal facilities.

An amount of R180 656 000 has been voted for health services and welfare.

I should like to say that I support this Bill unconditionally.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, allow me to make an announcement before I discuss the motion. This afternoon I was informed that the Orange River was in flood and that the wall of water was expected to reach Upington by tomorrow afternoon. A large number of my voters live on the islands, downstream from MacTagors camp. I want to ask the entire House to remember these people in their prayers. At the moment my department is in the process of evacuating schools and helping the people to get out of reach of the water.

Mr Chairman, I now move:

When I once again refer with regret to the shooting incident in Kakamas, I do so with a lump in my throat, because two innocent children had to lose their lives. Sir, you will note that I used the words “once again”. I am doing so because this matter was already discussed with the relevant Minister last week and the necessary information was given to the Press. I deplore the fact that this tragedy had to take place in Kakamas. For many years Kakamas was known as the most conservative town on the banks of the Orange River. It was also there that Dr Allan Boesak’s rebellion against suppression and discrimination started.

However, circumstances have changed dramatically in Kakamas. Recently Kakamas has become a place of love, mutual respect and unity. The sporting complex is at the disposal of the inhabitants of Kakamas and not only of a certain race group. At this time of wonderful progress, the devil has sent his disciples to cloud the waters of peace and solidarity. An explosive situation has developed. I would not like to see this aggravated by an irresponsible witch-hunt for names.

Kakamas is in my constituency. My people are involved. I, as their representative, took immediate action and did not wait for a funeral service to hurt people, whose hearts were already broken, even more. On the contrary, I preferred to send wreaths with words of comfort to the next-of-kin.

As has already been mentioned, the matter was immediately broached with the hon the Minister of Law and Order. In this connection I want to express my sincere appreciation to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, for his immediate reaction. He promised to institute an urgent and thorough investigation, which he did without delay. But, Sir, through the Chair I want to tell the hon the Minister that while on the one hand I am praising him for his quick action, and I have no doubt about the sincerity of his intentions, on the other hand I must mention that people have been deeply hurt.

†Wounds have been inflicted which time can never heal. The seeds of suspicion and distrust have been watered afresh and the human weakness to avenge the lives so ruthlessly taken is sure to come to the fore. I consider it therefore to be of the utmost importance that no effort will be spared to assure the peaceful community of Kakamas that their representatives in this House will leave no stone unturned until justice is brought about.

*I realise all too well that those people cannot be brought back to life, and my motion was not born out of hatred and enmity either, but the time has come for us once and for all to put an end to violent behaviour of any kind, and more specifically violence which leads to loss of life.

Although I therefore, as I have already said, greatly appreciate the behaviour of the hon the Minister, I consider it my duty to my voters in Kakamas and in the general interests of justice to request that this matter be treated as more than a departmental matter—and that is the reason for my motion on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself fully with the words of the hon the Minister of the Budget. I merely want to add to this by giving the hon the Minister of Law and Order a clearer picture of what Kakamas is really like. I can talk about this, because I was born there.

In my childhood we had what was called the “hotnotswinkel” and the “boerewinkel”. There one learnt that if there was no sugar at the “hotnotswinkel”, every Coloured went to bed that night without sugar. One did not dare to go and buy sugar at the “boerewinkel”.

I know the people of Kakamas well. They are wonderful people. When there is a funeral, everyone attends it. They are always ready to help when there someone is ill. There we still know what it is to lend each other a hand. If there is a sports meeting, everyone attends. Today I can say with the greatest confidence that the people of Kakamas are not violent people. Now hon members can understand that if a group of people arrive there in a vehicle, and what is more they are armed with what was described as “big guns”, this would be the event of the century in Kakamas. Events which are usually seen only in films suddenly become reality. Everyone asks: What is going on here?

Sir, no one can condone what happened there. To me personally it was a great disappointment that during this year, the 75th anniversary of the SA Police, and after everything the Police have achieved, one irresponsible man could turn up there and bedevil everything. This cannot be tolerated.

We remember the incident when the former Minister of Law and Order was still the Minister responsible. I found it heartening that when a man was shot from an unmarked vehicle, the wise step was taken of ensuring that in future all police vehicles would be marked vehicles. Police vehicles are recognisable even from the air because their code numbers are painted on their roofs with black paint. Yet those people from the Narcotics Bureau arrived in Kakamas in that way.

Sir, I live in an area which was initially considered to be one of the roughest townships in the whole of the Western Cape. I live in Macassar. However, today Macassar is a tame place. I want the hon the Minister to understand me. I am convinced that there is not a single hon member in this House who would condone smuggling. Smuggling must be stamped out. However when people with big guns go to a so-called “smokkelhuis” in Kakamas, there is no doubt in my mind that something is wrong. The management committees in Macassar were known for the fact—the Cape Herald reported on this many times—that they kicked out the smugglers.

In one month we kicked out 35 of them and nowadays one really comes across a “smokkelhuis”. Not even in Macassar where one has gangs such as the Cape Town Scorpions and the Mum Killers, people who are normally involved in this kind of thing, do the police walk in with a baton, a pickhandle, an R1 rifle, an HNK or an LMG. The police enter the area with the greatest confidence because they are fully in control of what is happening there. I want hon members to understand me properly. None of us wants the police to be hampered unnecessarily. They perform an indispensable task in our communities, which are plagued by every evil imagineable. However, our communities can also do without the “trigger happy” people we sometimes come across there. If the rumours are true that one of those people stood there and said: “Vandag skiet ek julle hotnots vrek”, I am asking the hon the Minister to see to it that the relevant person or persons are suspended immediately until the matter has been settled. I am saying this because a policeman from Macassar was suspended recently because he forgot to attend a monthly meeting on one of his days off. One understands that discipline must be maintained, but in the case in question human lives were at stake. For this reason I am asking in all earnestness that the relevant person or persons be suspended from the police immediately—today if possible. The people have every right to prove their innocence later.

Furthermore I want to link up with what the hon the Minister of the Budget said and I agree with him that a judicial inquiry is needed. In this connection I want to mention the name of Mr Justice Kannemeyer. I can motivate my standpoint because I know the people of Kakamas. Hon members will realise that after the incident on 13 February people will not be keen to talk to any police officer. They will simply say they know nothing. Friends of mine are no longer even prepared to discuss the matter with me over the telephone. They are too afraid that the “Nommer Asseblief” telephone exchange is listening in and that their names may be mentioned. I am not suggesting that intimidation is taking place, but because I know the people, and because they always try to stay on the right side of the law, I am asking for a judicial inquiry by Mr Justice Kannemeyer.

Mr Chairman, I would be glad if you would allow me a personal remark with reference to what my hon colleague said about the Orange River being in flood. As a person who also grew up on the banks of the Orange River and who is acquainted with those flood-waters, I should like to tell my hon colleague and other hon members who also come from that part of the world that we share the fears of the people who must face those flood-waters. Sir, I can tell you that it is not a pleasant experience and we hope and pray that it will not cause serious damage and perhaps even loss of life.

I now come to the motion of my hon colleague, the Minister of the Budget in this House, and I want to tell him that I listened very attentively to what he said here. I also want to say that the hon member spoke in an extremely responsible way about this matter. I can understand that hon members are upset and even sad about the events in Kakamas, and want to know precisely what happened there. I should also like to know this. That is why I said the following yesterday in the House of Assembly—I should like to quote it here so that hon members can take cognisance of it:

This, Sir, is the quote which I wanted to make from what I said in the House of Assembly yesterday. As I have said, I also want us to examine the matter in the minutest detail. We want to know what happened there. Hon members said that good, friendly people live in Kakamas. As you know, Sir, I grew up in Keimoes. We visited Kakamas often; I know the people there. They are good people, and there are ordinary people too. That is why we should also like to know what happened there. I should very much like to know.

Having said that we are going to investigate the events, I should like to explain briefly to hon members what this entails. What does this mean in practice? What does the investigation which is already under way entail? In the first place it entails taking sworn statements from any eyewitnesses or persons with information in connection with the events. Now hon members say that the people are afraid to come forward.

That is true.

The person who saw something will have to come forward in any case— whether he comes to give evidence before a policeman or before this senior police officer from Pretoria and makes a sworn statement, he will have to show his face.

It is a policeman who shot him.

Yes, Sir, but the policeman who shot him is not investigating the matter. I have said that a senior officer from the Police Head Office in Pretoria has been sent down to investigate the matter personally and to take the statements himself.

In the second place the investigation entails an investigation by the Forensic Division of the Police, which will investigate various aspects of the event. This means there will be an investigation into the shooting which took place there; aerial photographs will be taken; and a plan will be drawn up in accordance with available information. All this will form part of this intensive investigation, which will be undertaken by people from outside Kakamas and Upington. The matter will be examined in the minutest detail, because we want to know what happened there.

Then this evidence and all possible information will be submitted, not to me, not to the Commissioner of Police, but to the Attorney-General. He is a person we have no control over. He is an independent person. The Attorney-General in Cape Town or Kimberley will receive all this information, evidence, plans and reports from the forensic laboratory. It will be submitted to him and he will consider it. He can then do one of two things. He can say that in his opinion no offence was committed. He can say that the actions were lawful. Then the matter will be referred to a magistrate for an inquest which can be held in public. However, if the Attorney-General were to find that an offence had been committed, that people had exceeded their powers, he could have them arrested. I said a while ago that murder dossiers had been opened. He could decide to institute criminal proceedings against these people, and they would have to appear in court.

As I have already said, the Attorney-General is an independent person. Our courts are also independent institutions. Every one of us sitting in this House recognises that our courts are independent institutions. Neither the SA Police nor anyone in our country can use their influence to prescribe to the courts what their finding or decision must be. We are proud of our courts, because we have built up a legal system in our country on whose independence we rely. This even appears in the Preamble to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act.

Appoint a judge!

Sir, the hon member says we must appoint a judge. Something must come of the evidence collected by the judge. It must still be submitted to a court. Then the court must decide whether or not the people are guilty. [Interjections.] The facts of the matter are as follows: The judge will have to co-operate with policemen to collect evidence. That is what happened in respect of the Kannemeyer investigation. Who submitted the evidence? It was the policemen! It was not other people who suddenly did so. It was policemen who submitted the evidence to the judge.

Once the police have investigated the matter and it has gone to the Attorney-General, he will decide after submission of the facts whether the case must go to court. Then the evidence will be submitted to an independent judiciary for a final judgment.

Mr Chairman, I am therefore authorised to inform hon members that I have discussed the matter with the hon the State President. I saw the motion and I discussed it with him. The hon the State President expressed his sympathy with the next of kin of the deceased, and the injured. He also authorised me to say that in view of the independent judicial process which has already been put to operation—and in which the hon the State President has every confidence—he is not prepared to appoint such a commission now.

There is an existing, well regulated, established and tested judicial system which will ensure that all information is brought to light. If an offence has been committed, action will be taken. I should like to give hon members that undertaking. We must stand by this system. We must maintain this system. Where will we end up if we do not do this? That responsibility rests on all of us.

The courts are impartial, we agree; and the Attorney-General is impartial. In this particular matter, however, the police are involved. How can you say that the police investigation will be impartial in the eyes of the community?

Mr Chairman, if we should decide now to appoint a commission and a judge as chairman of the commission, who will submit the evidence to the judge?

The people!

The people cannot submit it. It will have to be the police. The people cannot submit evidence. In the case of a commission, the people will have to submit the evidence to the police officers. There is nobody else who can submit the evidence.

*We are dealing here with policemen who may have committed an offence—we do not know this.

We are now going to investigate what happened. However, I can tell hon members that everything possible will be done to get all the information, so that a decision can be taken on further action.

In conclusion I want to say that the events at Kakamas—I am glad that my hon colleague and the hon member for Macassar also referred to this—are not the norm. It is a pity that this happened, but the events at Kakamas are not the norm; they are the exception. There are policemen on duty in South Africa every second, every minute and every hour of the day, and they are expected to handle explosive situations and violence. In this case they allegedly attempted to catch drug dealers and smugglers. They were therefore actually taking action against people seeking to destroy our future.

In the process things sometimes go wrong; people make errors of judgment. The police are also human; we are not perfect. Things go wrong, but this is not generally the case.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister said a murder file had been opened. May I ask him whether these policemen have been arrested? In normal circumstances, when a murder is committed, the suspect is arrested.

The information we have at this stage is of such a nature that the Commissioner has not been able to decide as yet whether the people should be suspended or what should be done. However, I want to give hon members this assurance: We are looking into this as a matter of urgency and we shall take immediate steps when we have information indicating that we must take further steps.

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

Sir, I just want to finish first. I was saying that these events in Kakamas were not the rule, but the exception. I am sorry, but this happened. We must please see this in perspective. The SA Police is a disciplined force. Undisciplined behaviour is not tolerated. Action is taken against offenders. We have a great deal of evidence in this regard. At the moment people are being prosecuted and charged in court, because action is being taken against them by the police. The police investigate the matters and they take their own people to court, because 99,9% of the members of the SA Police are disciplined people. They do not tolerate offences by another member of the SA Police Force, and they take action against them. We have a great deal of evidence of how action is taken against such people.

In conclusion I want to say that as was the case in the past, action will be taken in future against every member of the SA Police Force who exceeds his powers.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether these policemen have been suspended or are they being allowed to continue with their normal duties as if nothing happened?

They have not been suspended yet, as I have said. We are looking at the situation and are waiting for more information. After that the Commissioner will act.

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

Certainly.

Actually it is a request I want to address to the hon the Minister. I know how the members of the Narcotics Bureau behave, and I want to ask the hon the Minister to appeal to these people to act with greater circumspection. We do not want to condone smuggling under any circumstances, but I know how these people behave. Prior to the 1984 election campaign the Narcotics Bureau descended on me. I have never drunk a drop of liquor in my life, but it was political intimidation. People sent them there. The next day I cleared up matters with the district commandant …

Order! The hon member is making a speech. The hon the Minister cannot reply to it. The hon member must put a question.

Mr Chairman, I asked to make a request and I am trying to explain.

Order! If the hon member elaborates too much, the hon the Minister cannot reply.

Mr Chairman, I am trying to explain how they treated me, an innocent person. Nine vehicles crammed with policemen arrived there and this is an everyday occurrence in our communities.

Mr Chairman, that was not a question, but I shall reply to it nevertheless. I should like to tell the hon member that we must not generalise. The Police do good work for all of us. I am sorry that this happened to the hon member, but with all due respect, it has nothing to do with the motion before the House today.

The fact is that a policeman who exceeds his powers is not the general rule, he is the exception.

Then he must be reprimanded.

It is an exception when these things go wrong. We must keep our perspective in this regard.

It was a certain Lieutenant Viljoen. I shall mention him by name.

Mr Chairman, does the hon member want me to react or does he want to keep on shouting while I am trying to reply?

Order!

I want to repeat that this unfortunate incident is not the norm, but the exception, and we regret it. It will be examined in the minutest detail and then the necessary steps will be taken. [Interjections.] We must please see this matter in perspective. The SA Police are doing excellent work for all the people of the country.

Not in Klerksdorp.

This also applies to the hon member Mr Douw who says that this is not the case in Klerksdorp.

Get hold of Lieutenant Viljoen!

I have taken cognisance of the hon member’s standpoint and complaints. However, we shall carry on with our job of looking after the people of South Africa, protecting them and serving them. I wish to emphasise this.

Mr Chairman, I am a clergyman and not a lawyer and for that reason I should like to ask the hon the Minister through the Chair whether what he explained to us here this afternoon amounted to a judicial inquiry.

Mr Chairman, we have set the judicial process in motion. An investigation is under way and it is not being controlled by the Police. All the information which is collected is handed over to a legal officer, namely the Attorney-General. Then it goes to a court of law. It is therefore a judicial process which is under way, and which will eventually become nothing less than a judicial inquiry.

Mr Chairman, I want to know from the hon the Minister why he went to the State President before having heard the evidence that was presented here today. Would it not have been proper to have gone to the State President after having heard the allegations and the evidence led before this House?

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister’s motion appeared on today’s Order Paper and in view of what I had said yesterday afternoon and had already announced in the other House, I consulted the State President. I submitted the facts to him with reference to what I had said in the other House regarding the process which was already under way. I pointed out to him that I had already made the announcement in the other House and then showed him this request. He said that in view of the announcement and the process which was already under way he did not see his way clear to appointing a commission. That is what happened.

Mr Chairman, I should like to qualify my question by saying that I do not wish to use this matter for petty political gain, but I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether this decision to refuse to appoint a judicial commission was taken by the hon the State President because White policemen were involved in this incident and two House of Assembly by-elections were due to take place in the near future, and one a little later.

Mr Chairman, colour plays absolutely no role in this. The fact that byelections are going to take place elsewhere in the country does not play a role either.

Mr Chairman, we listened to the hon the Minister of Law and Order when he gave us the assurance that two murder dossiers had been opened and that as the head of the Ministry he also wanted this matter to be investigated down to the minutest detail because he also wanted to know everything. I agree that one can only pass judgement once one has all the information.

As is clear from the debate this afternoon, I also want to express my disappointment that we cannot go home this afternoon with the assurance that there will be a judicial inquiry. It was very clearly stated by the hon member over there that when our people see policemen—irrespective of their rank—they fear intimidation. That is why I am expressing my dismay. However, I want to assure my hon colleague that I do not doubt his integrity or that of the hon the State President. For that reason we cannot but reconcile ourselves to the ruling that has been given.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

[Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon members to pay attention to what is said when someone is making a speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the more important amendments, as contained in the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill, are the following: The administrative arrangement that contributors must first register as workseekers with the Department of Manpower or an agent of the fund before they may submit an application for unemployment benefits, so that the Department can endeavour to place them in suitable employment, is being converted into a statutory obligation by the adjustment proposed in clause 2(b) for the amendment of section 35(6).

With the increase in the number of beneficiaries, a fair amount of problems have been experienced in enforcing this administrative arrangement, with the result that many beneficiaries do not register. The amendment is being effected to prevent benefits from being paid in cases where unemployed contributors could possibly have been placed in employment.

Clause 2(c) amends section 35(7)(c) to provide that an unemployed contributor who moves from the area of jurisdiction of one claims officer to the area of jurisdiction of another claims officer shall submit a new application for benefits within 28 days, instead of within 14 days, to the new claims officer in order to qualify for continuous benefits. This extension of time is being effected to accommodate contributors so that they are given more time to comply with this statutory requirement.

Section 35(13)(e) provides that an unemployed contributor shall not be entitled to unemployment benefits for a waiting or penalty period of up to six weeks from the date on which he became unemployed, if in the opinion of the claims officer he lost his employment through his own fault or left his employment voluntarily and without just cause.

The processing of the ever increasing number of applications for ordinary benefits takes up a great deal of the time of the limited number of assessing officers. Owing to the complicated nature of many cases and the appeal procedure, this often gives rise to delays in the payment of benefits.

The result of the proposed amendment in clause 2(d) will be that applications for benefits will be disposed of far more quickly. As hon members know, a contributor who has been penalised at the beginning of a 26-week benefit period receives the benefits at the end of that period for the period of the penalty in any case.

Order! I want to appeal to hon members to respect the Chair. When I give a ruling, hon members must please abide by it. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, section 36 stipulates that only medical certificates completed and signed by medical practitioners, in respect of diseases from which contributors suffer, may be accepted when their applications for sickness benefits are considered.

This section does not include homeopaths and chiropractors. Many contributors are treated by homeopaths and chiropractors and in the light of strong representations the Unemployment Insurance Board has put forward the amendments contained in clause 3, which will make medical certificates completed by chiropractors and homeopaths acceptable for approval of the payment of sickness benefits.

Section 37 of the Act deals with the conditions relating to maternity benefits. Subsection (5) stipulates that a female contributor shall not be entitled to these benefits unless she has been in employment, as a contributor or otherwise, for at least 18 weeks during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the expected date of her confinement or, where the application for benefits is made on or after the date of birth, the date of birth, as the case may be.

In order to bring the qualifying period for maternity benefits in line with the qualifying period for other types of benefits payable in terms of the Act, clause 4 makes provision for the qualifying period to be reduced from 18 to 13 weeks.

What I have spelt out here is in essence what the proposed amendments amount to, and I trust that they will meet with the approval of hon members.

Mr Chairman, the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which are before the House are the result of representations made to the Unemployment Insurance Board. After consultation with various employer and employee organizations, certain amendments were proposed by the board, which consists of both employer organizations and the representatives of trade unions.

Clause 1 empowers the Minister to designate any officer in the Department of Manpower to assign another officer in that department as a secretary to the Unemployment Insurance Board. At present only the Minister has the power to do so, and the amendment will therefore contribute to the smooth functioning of the board.

In terms of clause 2 the provision is deleted whereby a claims officer can withhold the payment of benefits for six weeks if, in his opinion, the contributor lost his employment through his own misconduct or voluntarily left his employment without just cause. The department handles approximately 28 000 applications per month. Its estimate was that the staff spend 30% of their time to investigate the reasons for unemployment when the number three appears on the contributor’s card. There will, therefore, be a substantial saving in man hours.

I want to point out that the amended clause 2 of the Bill retains the provisions of section 35(13)(f) of the principal Act, whereby an unemployed worker can be penalised by the withholding of benefits for up to 13 weeks if he refuses work offered to him. Perhaps we should look at this section in future, because it does happen that workseekers are offered work which, in the opinion of the claims officer, is suitable, but which they may be physically unable to perform.

Clause 2 also makes it compulsory for a workseeker to register as an unemployed person. The claims officer may now require him to provide proof that he is a workseeker who has been registered in terms of section 4(1) of the Guidance and Placement Act, 1981. This clause also extends the period during which an unemployed contributor can submit a further application for benefits, when he moves from the area of jurisdiction of one claims officer to that of another, from 14 days to 28 days.

I come now to clause 3 of the Bill which seeks to amend section 36 of the principal Act. Provision is now being made that chiropractors and homeopaths can also complete and sign applications for illness benefits.

Finally, in clause 4 of the Bill, the qualifying period applicable to maternity benefits is reduced from 18 weeks to 13 weeks in order to bring about uniformity with the other types of benefits.

Sir, we consider the amendments to be improvements to the principal Act. We therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Belhar for his support of the Bill. As the hon member put it, the Bill contains improvements to the existing Act. It will make the application of the Act somewhat more sympathetic.

In addition it can speed up the matter of the payment of unemployment insurance benefits. This will facilitate matters for the unemployed contributor. I therefore want to thank the hon member and the House for their support of this Bill. That is all I have to say about this matter.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, something will have to be done about this air conditioning system if hon members are expected to do any further work in this Chamber. We shall have to take a look at the air conditioning system. We have had problems with this since the beginning of this session. Apparently the problem is that the lights generate too much heat in the Chamber and then the air conditioner does not work at all. I am sorry that hon Ministers have come all the way here, but I feel that we cannot continue with the business of the House under these circumstances.

Mr Chairman, I should like to give an explanation for this. We have a problem in that we have one system which has to serve both the Hendrik Verwoerd Building and the old Parliamentary building. Problems are being experienced with certain control instruments, but we are doing everything in our power to get the air conditioning system to work well. However, it would seem that we will have to make a considerable effort to put matters right. We shall have to have certain apparatus replaced to get the air conditioners to work satisfactorily. It is not only this Chamber which is battling with this problem. The people in the western wing of the Hendrik Verwoerd Building are also complaining that conditions are becoming unbearable.

I have instructed my department to look into this. They are doing everything they can to put this matter right. We view it in such a serious light that we called in specialists from Pretoria to assist in this matter. We are using the best engineers at our disposal. I want to apologize to the House for the fact that things are not yet as they should be. However, we are making every effort to resolve the matter.

Mr Chairman, I want to suggest that we use the new Chamber. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I appreciate what the hon the Minister has said. This is not a joke; I view this matter in a serious light. Hon members of this House came here to work, but we cannot carry on under such circumstances. I understand the problem and I am aware of the specialist who came here from Pretoria. However, we were not informed on the progress made in this connection. I therefore ask, with all due respect, for immediate attention to be given to the air conditioning system in this specific Chamber, so that hon members can carry on with their work under better conditions.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

This morning we received the sad news of the passing away of Mr M R E Lewis, popularly known to all of us as Maurice, a fellow member of Parliament for Natal Mid-East in the House of Representatives. Mr Lewis has always been held in high esteem, not only in the community under the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives, but also by all South Africans—especially in the field of education. He held very high positions in teacher organisations and played a valuable role in those difficult days of negotiations which led to important break-throughs for people of colour in the educational fraternity. On behalf of the members of the House of Delegates I wish to convey to the members of his family our deepest sympathy. May his soul rest in peace.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues I would like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Those of us who hail from Natal have all had the occasion of meeting this gentleman and knowing him personally. His loss is deeply felt by all of us.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PRP I wish to associate myself with the sentiments that have been expressed by both the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House. I can testify to the fact that the late Mr Maurice Lewis most certainly was held in very high regard in the community in which he served for the greater portion of his life, and certainly for the community in which he served here in Cape Town. I also would like to associate myself with the final comment made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that we all pray that God, in his mercy, may grant him peace.

Question agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Mr Chairman, I wish to associate my hon colleagues and myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House do likewise.

Question agreed to, unanimously, all the members standing.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Hon members will have noted from the hon the State President’s opening address to Parliament on Friday, 5 February 1988, and statements made subsequently by the hon the Minister of Finance, that the economic climate in which this year’s appropriations must be evaluated, remains problematic. The cardinal point is that the high level of Government spending in the 1986-87 and 1987-88 financial years was intentional and anticyclic to compensate for very low levels of economic activity in the private sector. With tentative signs that we are in the initial phase of an economic upswing every effort must be made to support the trend. This must, of necessity, entail ensuring the private sector of a significantly larger share of the capital available domestically, no increases in overall taxation levels, despite tax reform, and discretionary spending money left in the pockets of ordinary people.

The main thrust of Government efforts to realise these goals is to curb inflation and curtail State expenditure. The hon the Minister of Finance is dealing with the macro-economic campaign against inflation. Suffice it to say that he deserves the wholehearted support of this House in this difficult task. Mr Chairman, hon members must therefore note that the Ministers’ Council has an equally difficult job. On the one hand it must ensure a fair financial dispensation for its community, but on the other hand it shares with the hon the Minister of Finance responsibility for staying within the strict limits set for the Exchequer in the new fiscal year.

The demands on the funds available to the Administration: House of Delegates have increased over the past year as a result of several factors, the main reason being that the prices of virtually all commodities and services have risen inexorably, resulting in increased spending simply to maintain existing levels of service and standards.

Then, too Mr Chairman, our community, like others, has been severely hit by the Natal flood disaster during September and October of last year. Despite rebuilding and other relief it will take some time yet to work through the fiscal consequences, in both urban and rural areas. It remains to be seen whether this month’s rains have further aggravated the situation. The flood damage of the past three or four days will certainly have added to the problem.

It can also be mentioned that the identification of land and lengthy negotiations on land for housing have been finalised in some areas in the Republic. Housing projects are gaining momentum with a resultant increase in expenditure on infrastructure and homes so urgently needed by the community. These issues, Mr Chairman, will, however, be dealt with in detail by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Housing, later in the session.

The share of the financial cake for the needs of our community, allocated for this House during the 1988-89 financial year, will reflect the stringent discipline demanded by the hon the State President. I shall deal with this in more detail during my Second Reading speech on the Main Appropriation Bill at a later date, but hon members should brace themselves in advance for the realities and appreciate the circumstances in which the Budget must meet the situation.

It is estimated that an amount of R296 million will be required for expenditure by the Administration: House of Delegates, until such time as the Appropriation Act, 1988, has been passed by this House and comes into effect.

A direct comparison between the total Part Appropriation for 1987-88 (R570 million) and that proposed for 1988-89 (R296 million) is meaningless, because in 1987 provision had to be made for the extended parliamentary session and a Main Appropriation very late in the year. In these circumstances a better perspective is obtained by reducing the proposed individual Part Appropriation Votes to percentages of the total Part Appropriation for which authority is sought. The picture which emerges is as follows:

The equivalent percentages in 1987-88 were 1,3%, 24%, 57,8% and 16,9% respectively, which means that departmental spending in 1988-89 is expected to be at very much the same rate as in 1987-88, albeit in the case of every vote at a somewhat higher level. This is reassuring.

Hon members will recall, too, that in terms of section 4(2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, a Part Appropriation may not be utilised for expenditure on new services or services which have not been approved of by this House in previous budgets. Hon members can, therefore, rest assured that they are now being requested to approve funds for services of which they already have knowledge and which have already been fully debated in this House.

Mr Chairman, I want to take advantage of the opportunity this debate offers to refer briefly to a matter which was discussed here yesterday. I have had the privilege of looking at a document which was circulated in connection with the Indian market. I want to be brief in regard to this matter. It consists of excerpts, obviously obtained by the Department of Community Development, from minutes of the Van Eyssen Committee, which summarise certain developments that took place in 1973 and 1974.

I want to make it absolutely clear that at all these meetings the market stallholders were represented along with representatives of the Indian Council. We constituted a minority in that commission. Furthermore, the decisions that were taken at that time were inevitable if any form of assistance was to be given to the market stallholders.

Unfortunately this document does not tell the whole story. When we subsequently ran into difficulties over the matter of the permanent resettlement of the market stallholders the Executive Committee of the SA Indian Council took advantage of the opportunity that we had to meet with the then Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Cabinet. The whole case was put to the Government by the then Minister of Community Development, Indian Affairs and Tourism, Mr Marais Steyn. What was originally mooted was discarded as a result of representations made by the SA Indian Council.

Mr Marais Steyn and Mr Fouché visited Durban and examined the market site as we know it today. They then told the officials of the market stallholders that even that site was not suitable for the plan that they wanted to announce and for which they had approval. Mr Marais Steyn said that he wanted to give Durban an oriental plaza in keeping with the city’s tourist potential and also in keeping with the respect that was felt for the Indian community and the contribution that they made in developing the tourism potential. He said that he did not mind if it would cost R14 million or whatever amount so long as it was a good site with plenty of parking. Such a site had to be identified and then one could go ahead with the planning to execute the job.

Thereafter the minutes of the Van Eyssen Committee reveal that Mr Fouché on the instructions of the then Minister of Community Development addressed the Van Eyssen Committee which was reconstituted and read the Riot Act to the Durban Corporation. He told them to remove all obstacles and to give him their full co-operation because the project had to be built and it would be built with State funds. Hon members will be aware that different sites were examined after that and ultimately an area near Soldiers’ Way at the old railway station was identified. Millions of rand were consequently spent to execute the project.

The subsequent outcome resulting from another Minister’s decision naturally caused us concern because the project was halted after a great deal of money had been spent in identifying the site and constructing plans. However, a later Minister of Community Development saw it fit to call a halt to this project. I mention these matters because I think hon members should know about them.

I would like to address my former colleague in the Executive Committee of the SA Indian Council and also a colleague in the Ministers’ Council. Even the Ministers’ Council made an attempt in more recent times to assist in this matter. Because of the urgency of the matter, visits were made over a weekend and representatives of the market stallholders were met to discuss the matter. There is therefore no question that these persons were relegated to a certain position although the Department of Community Development was unco-operative in the early stages. After they had made certain commitments they turned around and said that they would assume no financial responsibility. That gave us the opportunity to take up this matter. I know that our hon colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget is aware of these developments and will be able to substantiate what I have stated in this House.

On the other hand, we do not want to turn the market issue into a political issue. The hon member for Stanger moved a motion and pleaded with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to enter into negotiations in spite of what had been said by the officials of the Market Stallholders’ Association, and he asked him to help to resolve this outstanding issue.

Why did he remain silent over the past three months? [Interjections.]

I am not concerned about the motion that has been moved—it does not worry me. It can obviously be embarrassing if the story gets around but the truth will ultimately come out. He will be able to recount our experiences over 13 years stretching back from 1973. He will be able to substantiate what I have said in this House today.

With regard to the Budget I want to say to the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates that I appreciate we have financial constraints and I appreciate the need to allow our economy to generate mobility so that more job opportunities can be created in order to contribute to peace and stability in our country. I appreciate that the Government must keep out of the marketplace for funds so that the private sector can harness these resources to promote the policy as enunciated by the hon the State President.

I would like also to mention that we in the House of Delegates are judged by the Indian community on the basis of education, housing, social welfare and pensions. This is how we will be judged and what is more, the community is aware that we in this House are responsible for the portfolios handling these matters. I believe that if this tricameral system is to mean anything to our people it is in these areas that we will have to deliver the goods and satisfy the expectations and in fact go beyond that to demonstrate proof of what we are capable of doing. That is why I want to direct this appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget that there are many areas where one can, in the light of the hon the State President’s appeal, make concessions. But with regard to these matters which concern the lives of our people very closely and very intimately we have to ensure that adequate funds, the funds that are required by the Ministries, are made available.

I am aware that much more money could be used by the Department of Social Welfare as they have a lot of programmes and could do much more to carry these programmes that they have designed to the ordinary man and woman in our community. However, funds are inadequate.

Secondly, any percentage increase on last year’s funds is unacceptable. One must also accept that building and transport costs have gone up. The cost of everything is going up. Therefore in real terms the actual increase will make a very small contribution towards extending the depth and breadth and level of activities in the various departments.

My appeal is simply this: That in respect of social welfare, education, housing and land purchases we must be able to get all the money that we need.

I think it was the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who yesterday said that prices of R40 000 per ha are being asked for. If land is going to cost R40 000 per ha, millions will be spent on buying land which is completely out of keeping with the normal trends in the local market and secondly because as one is providing for the individual who looks to the State for assistance one may have to subsidise these prices if they are to be within the reach of ordinary people. So not only is the Group Areas Act imposing undue and severe burdens on us as a community with regard to mobility, but it is also placing heavy responsibilities on the shoulders of the Ministers’ Council to find the necessary funds to buy land at the prices which are being asked for, because we are a captive market.

I believe that one can provide the Indian community with homes, but if the prices are not realistic we shall be blamed for that too and again it is the Group Areas Act which is to blame. In other words the Group Areas Act has a tremendous bearing on the Budget of this House and I believe that we want to reiterate again that that law is in fact whittling down the ability of the resources that have been made available for housing to deliver the goods. The cost of land is a major contributory factor.

In fact I was shocked when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council cited certain figures regarding the likely cost of land to the north of Phoenix. I think it is matters like this that have to be brought to the attention of the Government. We cannot discuss a Budget when that Budget does not go the whole distance, often owing to matters beyond the control of this House, and that is the Group Areas Act. I want to say on this occasion that we have to ensure that the restrictions imposed on us and on our mobility, and on our ability to purchase land must come to an end as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, before the hon member for Laudium rises, I need to correct some figures. A gremlin got into the typewriter and I need to correct the figures on the Votes. Hon members will have noticed—I think hon members of the Official Opposition are a bit sleepy—that I said R296 million and I read R329 million for Education and Culture. It should have struck hon members immediately that there was something wrong. However, the position is as follows: Vote No 1, Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, remains at R4 600 000; Vote No 2, Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, remains at R61 219 000; the Education and Culture Vote should read R171 381 000; and Vote No 4, Health Services and Welfare, should read R58 800 000.

That is why you should have someone who can calculate; forget the machines for a while.

As long as the overall total, which is R296 million, is the same.

You should budget for a calculator.

Mr Chairman, I must say I was going to correct the statement made by the hon the Minister of the Budget but, since he has corrected his figures I shall not do so. When I looked at the figures, it amazed me that our total expenditure last year for education amounted to almost R329 million, and now we were being given a part Appropriation of R320 million. It amazed me.

As we know the Part Appropriation Bill is just to tide us over for a short period until the main Budget is read so what we can say on the Budget itself is very limited. We can, however, raise other matters that are relevant to this particular debate.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned the market in Durban, and I also want to make an appeal here to the hon the Minister of the Budget that in his final Budget analysis he should bear in mind that we need money to build this market. When we work with these figures we see that, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said, a pledge was given by the then Minister, not only in respect of Durban, that the market would be built. I feel we are morally obliged to build this market for the Indian stall-holders of Durban. As such I appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget this afternoon, bearing in mind when he approved his final Budget, that this amount of money be made available.

We have problems, as the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council are aware. During a visit to the Transvaal we learnt that promises that were made by the then Department of Community Development as far as business complexes were concerned, were never carried out. There were certain towns where plans were approved and contractors were almost on site, when these things came to an abrupt standstill. Our people are still waiting for these kinds of projects. A typical example of this is at Germiston on the East Rand where the traders are still waiting for this particular complex to be built. I feel that we, the House of Delegates, are morally obliged to build this particular complex for those people.

There are other places in the Transvaal as well. Witbank is one of them. In the shanty bazaar at Witbank they also had a raw deal. People are still living in slums.

Shopkeepers are trading in slums. The problem of the resettlement of those Indian traders has not yet been settled. My appeal is that this matter be taken up with the central Government, and at the highest level of government, so that more funds may be made available for our housing fund so that we may satisfy the aspirations of these people that have been waiting and that were victims of the Group Areas Act.

There is another matter in regard to which I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. I believe that the figure given to us last year by the hon the Minister of Housing was that R46 million is spent on subsidies for first-time home-owners. I feel that at the ceiling of R40 000 for homebuilding it is completely inadequate. This must be taken up with the central Government and with the other hon Ministers of Housing. We should now raise the ceiling to be in line with the current cost structure of first-time home-owners. The current figure is completely inadequate and I feel that provision must be made in the main appropriation for this.

I also wish to discuss the education vote. I do not know whether this was something done purposely by the department in order to save a month or two of salaries, but last year many of our teachers were placed in temporary positions. At the end of the term their services were abruptly terminated, but they were reappointed in January. However, during that particular period we could not assume that there was no work for these teachers. They were appointed last year; their services were terminated when the schools closed on 10 December last year; they were reappointed in January, but during that period they lost the salary that was due to them.

Not all of them, some of them were paid.

Most of those teachers that were appointed on a temporary basis were reappointed this year, and did not receive their salaries.

[Inaudible.]

These are qualified teachers that have graduated from our colleges. I feel that this is very unsatisfactory and that provision should be made in this year’s budget to appoint these teachers—who have again been appointed to temporary positions—to the permanent staff. Let them also know what their future is. They are appointed on an ad hoc basis for a certain period only, and have still not been accepted as full and permanent teachers. They lose out.

As I said previously, we are not mindreaders and we cannot determine what our total appropriation is going to be for this year. However, the appeal is made to our hon Minister of the Budget to get the best deal for our people.

Mr Chairman, yesterday in this House we discussed the very crucial issue which adversely affects the socio-political and economic spheres in this country. No one can deny that— this matter comes up time and time again. Nonetheless, it is a cancer affecting this country.

The repeal of the laws on influx control in 1986 represented a milestone achievement in the history of this country. However, an Act that surpasses that act in its devastation and the problems it causes for the people—problems in every sector of human activity—is the Group Areas Act. Unfortunately the motion moved yesterday was allowed to lapse, but what became abundantly clear was how unconvincing the arguments were that the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning struggled to advance. Nobody can deny that; in fact, he himself said that it was difficult to advance arguments to neutralise the many sound arguments and facts advanced in this House yesterday, which would convince anyone that the Group Areas Act was not in the interests of this country.

It is not in the interests of humanity nor in the interests of any community in this country, not even the Whites. Only history will prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the Group Areas Act must go. Its premises are immoral and based upon fear. Because the non-Whites are overwhelming in numbers, they would supposedly affect the community adversely. I advanced the argument yesterday that the solution to the problems of this country does not lie in the Group Areas Act. We should afford opportunities to all the people of this country to really promote civilising influences to an improved standard of thinking and living in every walk of life. This includes education, housing, morals, economics etc. The day we get to that stage, we can say that South Africa has become enlightened. We should not allow such laws to retard progress in this country. I have great faith in the White community, to the extent that the younger generation will certainly not tolerate this diabolical Act.

Some of them are AWB members!

Let us look at the facts. The removal of the Group Areas Act will boost the economy of South Africa in so many ways to the betterment of all the people of this country. I know that the hon the Minister of the Budget advanced arguments that the Budget would not be more than it is, because we had suffered certain setbacks. He mentioned the Natal floods, which have certain made demands on our Budget. He also mentioned the recent Orange Free State floods, which will do the same.

And apartheid costs money. We must pay for it!

I am coming to that. Private enterprise has not been harnessed to the extent that all of us would have liked it to be, but these things take time. I am happy that South Africa is thinking of really affording private enterprise the scope and the opportunity to flourish. It can only be to the good of this country. However, the serious problem which confronts South Africa at present is the question of the Black people. Once we are able to settle that question amicably, including the fact that they have not yet been brought into the Government at the highest decision-making level, we will have gone a long way. Personally I was disappointed when the hon the State President made his speech at this year’s opening of Parliament. The question of the Black people and the latest position with regard to this dispensation was not aired boldly and loudly. Tens of thousands of Black people were also left disillusioned on that day. They eagerly awaited something to be said about their future. One can understand this because some important statements were made in the previous two opening speeches.

Even if nothing authentic had been achieved, some reference to the subject would have left the Black people with the feeling that they had not been completely forgotten this year. I feel this was an omission.

Turning more specifically to the National Council Bill, I know that this Bill has been prepared but I do not know to what extent the Black people have accepted it in good faith. I do not doubt the sincerity of the White Government with regard to drawing Black people into the processes of Government by means of whatever formula it may adopt.

Do not be too sure!

I do not doubt their sincerity at all because the Black people will have an opportunity to express their point of view. However, we should have liked to have been informed as to which memoranda had been submitted by whom. What were the comments of the various groups? Were they in favour of this Bill or not?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware that he is entitled to attend the sittings of the standing committee and to ascertain that information for himself?

I did not hear the question clearly.

Is the hon member aware that as a member of Parliament he is entitled to attend the meetings of the standing committee and to establish for himself what evidence those leaders gave?

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has given me a wonderful opportunity to the extent that I may do so and the other 44 hon members present here, as well as the 178 members in the House of Assembly, may also do so. [Interjections.] However, Mr Chairman, I made the statement on behalf of the country at large, on behalf of the general public. To that extent, there has been an omission, if I may say so. I shall not put it any more strongly than that.

There is another factor at issue here. I think that when it comes to stringency in the Budget, there has to be stringency throughout. The allocation of money is certainly not satisfactory. I know that when we discuss other aspects of the Budget this will become very evident. Since the House of Delegates took over, there have been certain areas in which the interests of our people have been jeopardised rather than ameliorated. It then becomes a serious matter for us to stop and think about whether own affairs are really in the interests of the community. I say this because many, if not all, hon members have proclaimed loudly and boldly that we came to Parliament to see to it that we have a single Parliament and to dismantle apartheid. Having come here, we have said many things to strengthen own affairs and if there are certain aspects impinging on our own affairs budget which in turn could have adverse consequences on many facets of the life of our community or on the country at large, then I think we are partly to blame.

The hon member for Stanger moved a motion earlier on calling for an election, and I think the time has come for that. However, I think that before too long we must take matters through to their logical conclusion—I say this very sincerely—and ask for the dissolution of own affairs.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister did say yesterday in no uncertain terms that it was convention to talk out a private member’s motion.

It is necessary for the House to have this debate and hon members must become knowledgable about the subject matter.

Yesterday we discussed the Group Areas Act. Unfortunately, the proposer of the motion had not put the matters forward fairly and correctly for the attention of the Government. There is a historical background to the Group Areas Act. That particular Act was intended for the Indian community, but by coincidence the other communities became affected under the Act. In 1927 the late Dr D F Malan was the Minister of the Interior in a coalition government. He introduced a Bill called the Class Areas Bill in Parliament at that time.

It was the Hertzog government.

Well, it could have been the Hertzog government. I understood it was a coalition government. However, the point is that at that time many Indian establishments employed Whites in executive and managerial positions. As a result, representations were made to the Government and a select committee was appointed. Evidence was heard from these various establishments, and amongst others a certain Mr A I Kadji from Durban who also employed many Whites.

The late Mr Kadji.

The late Mr Kadji. Anyway, it makes no difference. The late General Smuts then abandoned the idea of introducing the Class Areas Bill. The entire idea was shelved. This Bill was intended for the Indian community. Later, in 1942, there was a hue and cry in Durban concerning Indian penetration into White areas and General Smuts introduced the pegging act. Even later, in 1946, the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act was introduced. The late Dr Malan, when he came into power in 1948, remembered the very Act he introduced in 1927 and gave effect to the Group Areas Act.

It is necessary to put the historical background of this Act to the Government. The hon the Minister was here, but he is not here now, and I merely wanted him to know this, because I want him to know that the Group Areas Act was intended for the Indian community and no other community.

As far as the Budget is concerned, the funds provided are only for an interim period. I would like to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget to provide more money for Indian housing. I want to commend the present hon the Minister of Housing for all he is doing to provide housing for the Indian community. However, as far as Natal in general is concerned, that area is starved of housing for the various communities. The hon the Minister of Housing must take this into account. As rightfully pointed out by the hon member for Isipingo and other hon members, adequate housing for the Indian community in Natal is not provided. Although the hon the Minister of Housing is doing his best, his hands are tied with regard to finances. The hon the Minister of the Budget must be able to provide sufficient money in order to enable the hon the Minister of Housing to provide adequate housing for the Indian community in Natal.

The other matter I wish to refer to is health services and welfare. I think the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare should look at the question of pensions for the aged and social grants. There are many complaints that grants are being discontinued as a result of people taking up part-time employment. I think the hon the Minister should look into the question of social grants, widows receiving pensions etc. There have been many complaints that these grants have been discontinued, as a result of medical checks.

I will be pleased if the hon the Minister of Education and Culture will look into matters concerning the cultural programmes for our Indian community. Notwithstanding the fact that a very big establishment has now been acquired in Natal, I still feel that the Indian culture needs regional cultural establishments. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture should give effect to that so that the Indian culture can be promoted more effectively on a regional basis. I also feel that cultural programmes should be introduced at Indian schools.

Mr Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the hon member Mr Thaver make those remarks about the Group Areas Act. It is a great pity that he was not afforded the opportunity to speak during the debate on the Group Areas Act yesterday because I am sure that he would have made a valuable contribution there as well.

The hon the Minister of the Budget prefaced his speech by saying that the task of the Ministers’ Council was a difficult one because on the one hand it had to ensure that a fair financial dispensation for the community was obtained, whilst on the other hand it shared with the hon the Minister of Finance the responsibility of staying within the strict limits set by the Exchequer in the new financial year.

One cannot fault those sentiments expressed so generally. However, one has to ask: What is a fair financial dispensation towards this House and towards the Indian community?

I have said consistently year in and year out that in my view the Indian community has been short-changed whenever a Budget has been presented in this House. I have always said so because I feel that not a single Minister of the Budget—and we have had several as hon members know—has been able to explain to me just exactly how the Ministry arrived at the budgeted figure, in other words, how they came to budget for the amount that was allocated.

We are all mindful of the fact that the Indian community was and still remains a disadvantaged community. We are all aware of the fact that there are tremendous backlogs that have to be overcome in that community. I therefore want to say to the hon the Minister that he must ensure at every opportunity that he is able to get as large a share of the cake as is possible under the circumstances. One does not expect him to do more than that. However, having done that and having realised that the Indian community has been short-changed, it is distressing to find as we do in the report of the Auditor-General that where an amount of R49 million was set aside for Indian housing, only R8,9 million was actually spent.

Which year was that?

It is for the year ending 31 March 1987.

I am not concerned as to who was responsible. My concern lies in the fact that such a large amount was set aside for Indian housing but only a fraction of that amount was actually spent. Yet we all know that there is a dire need for housing in all the Indian areas. I simply want to make the point that when we receive the latest report of the Auditor-General we do not want to see that it has become a consistent feature that budgeted amounts are not utilised by this Administration.

It is a crying shame.

You will get a reasonable answer.

I always appreciate a reasonable answer. Whilst we are looking for answers, I should like to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget why it was that this Administration was unable to spend R133 000 last year. It underspent by R133 000. This is reflected also in the report of the Auditor-General and I raise this because I myself raised the matter with the hon the Minister when he was the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and asked him to ensure that his colleague, the hon the Minister of Education found an amount of money to provide for a feeding scheme in our Indian schools. The answer that was given at the time was that we do not have funds. Let me tell him that we could have utilised the R133 000 and fed all those children who come from underprivileged homes.

I want to come to another matter. It is one which I have raised and which others have also raised. I think it was the hon member for Phoenix who also raised this and it concerns the hospital at Phoenix. I understand that this Budget is a Part Appropriation Budget and that all it does is to seek bridging finance—to use the words of the hon member for Southern Natal. However, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been reported as having taken to task the Phoenix Child and Welfare Society for making the plea for a major hospital in Phoenix, precisely because he says that this was done after the hon Chairman had given two pledges in that regard recently in Phoenix. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says that this is correct. Now I would have expected the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to have come here this afternoon and to make that commitment through the hon the Minister of the Budget. Nowhere in the speech of the hon the Minister do I find any commitment with regard to that. I am well aware of the fact that this is a bridging Budget, but nevertheless I believe that the hon the Minister could have made a commitment and could have indicated that this was being planned for in the Main Budget. I trust I will find such an item in the Main Budget.

We will deliver the goods.

I am not so sure whether the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is able to deliver the goods. I believe that that hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is neither able to deliver the goods politically for the Indian community nor is he able to deliver the goods in the sense of providing all the services that the Indian community requires.

Why are you concentrating on Indians?

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council asks me why I am concentrating on Indians. My reply to him is very simple. The Bill before us is a Part Appropriation Bill specifically for Indian people.

One looks at the sentiments expressed by the hon the Minister and one finds that he does not wish to waste these limited resources that we have in this country. If we are to carry that to its logical conclusion I would have expected the hon the Minister of the Budget to have explained to his colleague the hon the Minister of Education that he should not spend all this money on building another teachers training college in Cato Manor.

It is not being built.

The hon the Minister says that it is not being built. I refer to a report in, I think it is, the Sunday Tribune Herald of 24 January 1988 where the hon the Minister has been quoted as saying:

I say to the hon the Minister: Why do we need another Indian Springfield Training College? Why can we not use the resources that are available at Edgewood, for instance? Why is that hon Minister unable to persuade his colleagues in the other ministries to use all the resources this country has to offer to the best advantage of all our people?

I find that the hon the Minister is dumbfounded. [Interjections.] I take that in the spirit in which it was offered.

Finally, I want to raise another issue with the hon the Minister concerned and that relates to the question of the psychiatric wards that were supposed to have been on the drawing board. When that hon Minister was Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House I think he indicated to us that he would ensure that the psychiatric wards at King George VIII Hospital would in fact be built. I was amazed to read very recently a report from some members of the particular department concerned expressing grave concern that this had in fact not happened. I would like to ask that hon Minister whether in fact we are going to have a psychiatric ward or not, whether we are going to have that hospital or not.

Mr Chairman, if one were to study the recordings of today’s speech delivered by the hon member for Springfield, one would notice that there was a tremendous emphasis on facilities in Indian areas. Now let us not fool South Africa. In one breath the hon member pretends to champion the cause of those who are not represented in the parliamentary structure, and when it suits him the feeling of Indianism comes in. I want to say to that hon member that his party is bankrupt, he is bankrupt of political philosophies and political ideologies and that is why, contrary to what they boast in Parliament, they have failed miserably to put their party’s power to the test in the recent by-elections.

Will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council take a question?

I will take the hon member’s question at the end of my speech.

Even in the Tongaat by-election that party’s leader boasted that they were throwing their weight behind Solidarity. In spite of all the campaigns the NPP were the negative, narrow, petty, bigoted minds. We succeeded against the combined might of the opposition. [Interjections.]

I suggest to the hon member for Springfield that he first check his facts in connection with the R49 million that was unspent for housing. The facts of the matter are that the R49 million was made available in March that year and as everyone knows March is the last month of the financial year. How is it possible for any administration to spend R49 million in one-twelfth of a financial year? There was no loss.

That was carried over, and I hope that all the hon members of this House realise that. I hope, too, that the media does not misinterpret the misunderstanding and the inability of that hon member to understand simple logic.

I also wish to say to the hon member for Springfield that I reacted to a statement made by the front of the Natal Indian Congress in Phoenix, concerning the Phoenix Hospital. The hon member for Phoenix will know this. I said that the Ministers’ Council gave a pledge, firstly in respect of the establishment of a dental faculty at the University of Durban-Westville. Subsequently we gave a pledge in respect of the construction of a major community hospital in Phoenix. During the debate on the motion of no confidence my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare adequately clarified this issue. However, I stated in this House in 1986 that the construction of a hospital was an own affair. However, the decision to allocate the funds for a hospital is a general affair. A decision has to be taken at the level of the Ministry and the Department of National Health and Population Development.

I reported that we have held discussions with the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, at which the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare played a very important role. When one is about to succeed, and does in fact succeed in one’s endeavours, and at the time when the estimates are printed the figures do not appear in the estimates, this does not mean that one is not succeeding.

However, I want to give a pledge to this House this afternoon that we will definitely provide the hospital in Phoenix. [Interjections.] It is going to be a 750-bed hospital, and I am going to propose, since the hon member for Springfield is using Phoenix as a good hunting ground in which he failed miserably with his party, that if he so desires, and if he suffers any depression as a result of his party’s failure in Phoenix, we shall be prepared to provide a psychiatric ward in that new hospital for him if he wishes.

[Inaudible.]

Well, the psychiatric ward. He could make the first entry, and occupy it free of charge for six months if there is any need.

I want to extend an invitation to that party to fight the elections in Phoenix, and I guarantee that that party will, as sure as night follows day, be knocked into oblivion as soon as we have a general election.

We do not believe in dead votes. [Interjections.]

Order!

I know that they will come forward and say that because Blacks are not included in the tricameral Parliament, they have decided not to contest the next election. However, the real reason will be that the public will catch up with them. They are the great masters as far as tabling questions and uttering negative criticism are concerned. [Interjections.]

I want to deal with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I quote him as follows:

Thus, when it suits people, one places a heavy emphasis on the delivery of the goods in the areas in which the Indian community resides. He is not interested in the delivery of goods in the areas where other communities reside. Moreover, the hon member for Cavendish says the following, and I want to quote him correctly:

That is why there is a heavy strain on the Budget for the Administration: House of Delegates, because we are not jealously and selfishly guarding the interests of the members of the Indian community. If we are fighting for benefits of the members of the Indian community, we are fighting for the benefits of the members of the Black community as well. The Fiscus cannot be taxed any more. According to the Minister of Finance the individual South African taxpayer is already overtaxed. The added amount for the development of Black communities has to be found in the same Budget.

Somebody has to make a sacrifice—somebody who was favoured because of the implementation of the policy of apartheid. In the fields of housing, welfare and education we came off second best. Third best were the Coloureds and last were the Blacks. If any community has to make sacrifices to ensure that there is equality in this country, that first will have to be the White community, then the Indian community. We cannot say that when it suits us we shall afford high priority in respect of the development of Indian areas. That should go for all areas, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

In respect of housing, there is no doubt that the Group Areas Act has seriously affected us. This was stated clearly yesterday. This adverse effect has been felt by us ever since the Group Areas Act was passed by Parliament. Right now it is affecting us seriously because land is available. The system of valuation, however, sees to it that we are not able to provide housing for the broad mass of the South African population at affordable prices. It hurt me when I recently read in the Sunday Times that the prices in the Orange Free State now also have rocketed to unrealistic levels. However, we are taking adequate safeguards. We are ensuring that the exploiters, the middlemen, will not take a bite at the cherry. Wherever possible the House of Delegates will undertake the responsibility to provide the necessary services itself. If we do allow private enterprise it will be under certain controlled conditions, to ensure that they satisfy the conditions imposed by our Administration.

We do have problems in Natal, where one only has to examine a map and shade KwaZulu off to find that we have a very narrow strip within which we can move. We are actually skinned to the bone as far as the availability of housing on the Natal coast is concerned. However, we have done the necessary groundwork. Within the region of Isipingo, Pinetown, Mariannhill, Phoenix, excluding Verulam, and in the Durban region, we have identified sufficient land so that approximately 20 000 housing units can be provided. The problem lies with the price of the land. I want the Natalians to understand that the record we have set in Lenasia will not last long, but that it will be broken in the Durban metropolitan area. In Tongaat we have problems, because we have identified land where we could build 4 000 housing units. The same applies for Stanger, where we have given the necessary green light. Looking at Richards Bay, the west of Verulam and the Roodekrantz area, one can see that a lot has been done and very soon, I am sure, South African records will be broken in this respect. I do not want Natalians to think that their interests are being ignored.

I must repeat that I do not believe that any hon member of this House is in favour of the duplication of services.

I agree with the idea that if one has an underutilised institution in a particular region, it would not be wise to build another institution. However, if that under-utilised institution is not made available; if explanations are being given that that under-utilisation is of a temporary nature, are we going to neglect our community? Are we going to ignore the provision of facilities?

In connection with the teacher-training institution my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, will reply adequately but I want to say that as long as negativity and petty ideologies exist it will not be wise for us to neglect the provision of essential facilities for our own people within our own areas. [Interjections.] We do not want to beat about the bush. We do not want to say that we should promote own affairs— it depends on the circumstances into which a particular individual is placed—and then in the same breath, when we are addressing another audience, say that we want to promote the interests of all South Africans. However, one issue on which no one can fault this House—and that goes for both sides of the House—is the protection of the interests of all South Africans. [Interjections.]

We must share the facilities.

Yes, the hon member for Springfield says we must share facilities but what we are doing wherever possible, is sharing money in a proper manner.

Tell us how.

We have given the hon member an example in the field of education where his own leader once criticised the allocation of funds to this House saying that we were stealing the Black man’s money and spending it on the members of the Indian community.

Do you accept that?

I do not accept that.

Then you are arguing against yourself.

I regard that as the biggest example of political mischief making that ever took place in this House.

The hon member for Springfield must realise that his party’s bluff has been called. For example, the hon member for Springfield once criticised us for paying too high a rental in Malgate and suggested that the State buy the Malgate Building.

Not at that price.

When the State bought the Malgate Building he forgot that it was as a result of the suggestion he had made.

I am glad you listened to me, but not at that price.

The hon member for Springfield therefore has a habit of forgetfulness. Of course, he is worried about the price. The prices are paid in accordance with norms laid down by the South African Treasury, and these norms are jealously safeguarded. The hon member for Springfield must realise that.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to the bankruptcy of the PRP. Would he deny that the PRP is so bankrupt that we cannot even offer him a sweet? Furthermore, Mr Chairman, would he also confirm the old idiom that he must fear the Greeks though they may bring gifts? [Interjections.]

With reference to the Greeks, Mr Chairman, I want to say that we are not afraid of the Trojan horse. More particularly, we are not afraid of the Trojan horse that has only three legs. [Interjections.] Despite the fact that that Trojan horse suggests that it wants a fourth leg, it will never get a fourth leg. [Interjections.] Furthermore, if that Trojan horse is not careful, it may end up with only one leg. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in this Part Appropriation a very heavy responsibility hinges on the hon the Minister of the Budget. Aside from the Director-General of the department, he is the financing officer upon whom this House places a tremendous onus in terms of accountability for the finances of the House of Delegates.

I should like to set the record straight during this particular debate. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so. Many allegations have been made in this House against me and against many other hon colleagues, as well as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and the opportunity has not arisen to clear up these issues. We on this side of the House took the opportunity to address this matter to the hon the State President and I should like the hon the Chief Whip of the majority party to listen, since he said during the previous debate that this matter should be raised with the hon the State President.

The hon the State President made it very clear in the case where allegations were made against me, where no enquiry was undertaken after a motion was proposed, when he advised, through the leader of the party, that these matters must be dealt with entirely by this House. Therefore I want to place the onus on the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of the Budget. They owe it to this House that these matters be resolved. Many other allegations are also bandied about, and in the end this affects our credibility and our accountability for finances.

I wish to say to the hon the Minister of the Budget in advance that while we are using this House as a temporary measure, as we ourselves have announced previously, in all debates and also in this debate we are using this forum to initiate reform and to make changes. In the meantime we will use it to provide facilities to better the social and educational development of our community, the Indian community, while at the same time dealing with those problems for the other communities in South Africa. I think we are scoring political points by sometimes saying that we are talking about ourselves, the Indian community, and at other stages making demands for the community at large. The fact that my colleague has presented a Part Appropriation for the House of Delegates only, restricts us to talking to him about the amount of money that his colleagues in the Ministers’ Council require. Therefore I am not going to use this debate to score this kind of point. I think there are other opportunities. I think it is clear that we are using this as a forum to bring about the changes South Africa requires. I think all sides agree that money is required for all communities in South Africa.

I therefore want to warn in advance. I do not want to be selfish, but I want to see that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, through the forum in which he is involved, at the level of the decision-making, considers the entire South African community. He and his colleagues will answer one very important issue beside the question of housing, with the cost of land, escalation of development cost, labour and the facilities required for education—namely that the means test on which pensions and grants are allocated, be done away with. In fact, I would like to see him budgeting to do away with the means test.

Concerning equality in pensions, the regulations which were promulgated by the then Ministers of Indian Affairs, Coloured Affairs and White Affairs, making regulations different for each community, should be done away with. I would like to see this so that we can say that at least in the last three years we have attained some progress in trying to address this problem. That would mean that many of our people who have been disenfranchised and unable to get this, will be able to get pensions and grants.

The ceiling of pensions and grants for us is lower than for the White community, and for the Black and Coloured communities it is even lower. We cannot afford this, when costs in South Africa are the same for everyone. Today the cost of living is rising and we know salary increases are provided for labour in industries. Now the call of the hon the State President makes it far worse, even, in that he is asking for a moratorium on salaries and other benefits. I think this will militate against the poorer communities, particularly the pensioners and the grant-receiving families.

I would like the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare to bear in mind that we have heard enough in the past two and a half years. He has the power to make his own regulations or to bring existing regulations in line with those of the White community or to a new level so that the same ceiling will apply to everyone in South Africa. The Social Pensions Act does not discriminate against any particular group. The necessary regulations exist, I think the hon the Minister has the situation in hand and I hope he will take the matter further.

Insofar as education is concerned, I think the hon the Minister of the Budget and his colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, should look at the question of the provision of facilities such as sport fields at schools. There should be a Director of Sport in the Department of Education and Culture. There is no point in talking of a budget for education when the hon the Minister has a huge backlog that has to be brought up to date before a budget can even be established for all the communities in South Africa. If he does not do this he will fall even further behind.

I know that the Ministers’ Council and the Director of Education have done everything possible and the Treasury will have to understand that the backlog has to be brought up to date first of all. When that is done one can consider a new formula for education, housing and for health services and welfare. As long as we have such a tremendous backlog the hon the Minister and his department cannot answer to the demands of the education committees and the community regarding our present facilities. I hope that the Budget for the financial year 1988/89 will address some of these problems and not prevent the House of Delegates from trying to eliminate the backlog.

I want to warn the hon the Minister of the Budget that unless all these issues are investigated he can expect problems. Certain allegations have been made and unless they are cleared the hon the Minister will find himself with a heavy burden. I would like to know what the hon the Minister himself is doing to try to rectify the situation since the hon the State President said that he cannot involve himself in the matter. The Advocate-General is also not prepared to investigate the matter because the allegations are made by a different person. I think the House should now resolve this issue.

Mr Chairman, …

Bhubezi.

Order! What did the hon member for Stanger say?

Quo vadis.

Mr Chairman, I said “Quo vadis?" [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member please repeat exactly what he said?

Mr Chairman, I said to the hon member in Zulu that he was a lion.

Order! Hon members must please comply with my request not to use other languages in this House. The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the Part Appropriation Bill there has been no opposition so far. I want to thank my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget at the outset for the efforts that he has made and the initiative that he has taken, particularly as it occurred in a most trying period. One reason why I call this a trying period is because of the floods during September and October last year as well as the floods that we have at the moment. The hon the Minister of the Budget mentioned this very ably in his Second Reading speech of the Part Appropriation Bill where he said:

Any country and any treasury must take cognisance of unforeseen circumstances and catastrophes that one is subjected to without any warning. The flood disasters that struck us in this country were something unforeseen. They were not planned for but they must be attended to.

The attention that the flood disaster has received from all departments right from the hon the State President at the top downwards is commendable.

I must say with regard to the flood disaster an amount of R15 million was considered for the agricultural sector over the three year period. Here again we must compliment the department involved, apart from the high-level committee of my colleague the hon the Minister of National Health as well as the hon Minister of the Budget and the hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare.

In this debate today we have also heard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition together with my hon colleague recap the Group Areas Act. It would seem that the Group Areas Act is a continuous linking factor. The effects that the Group Areas Act has had are understood, but nonetheless in spite of the Group Areas Act and its limitations and the restrictions that it has had on the mobility of the Indian people, at leadership level and by community leadership every effort has been made to help our community.

The hon member for Cavendish has made some very good statements here that an amicable solution for all racial groups is eventually to participate in the highest legislature of the country. And this is a cry that has been going out from this House since we have come to this Parliament.

I do not think that it is the intention of those who are represented here to entrench own affairs. All we are involved in is finding a solution to the ultimate which we are looking for.

When it comes to housing there has been certain criticism. Understandably housing has been one area within the India community in South Africa which has been a sore point. With all the money at one’s disposal it would have been humanly impossible to have done more than the hon the Minister has done thus far with regard to housing. When it came to housing I know that some hon members spoke out very strongly about Natal because of a certain announcement in the Transvaal. We agree and I mentioned this previously also.

What we must be able to look at are the problems that we are confronted with in Natal. One must look at Malagasi. I have always quoted Malagasi and the various other areas on the North Coast. Here again plans are afoot and I am satisfied that we are gaining momentum.

I want to touch on another point. Unfortunately the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has just left. Here we have a problem. The sale of the Ntumeni mill to Transvaal farmers could rob thousands of their jobs. This is a very unfortunate state of affairs we are faced with in Natal. This mill is situated at one of the outposts some 25 kilometres away from Eshowe. It has been in existence for the last 60 years and we have over 100 Indian families there and many hundreds of Blacks. In recent years the Black community has been assisted to cultivate sugar-cane so much so that we have something like 1 300 Black farmers today and the Sunday Tribune of 21 February reported on the “… 80 000-strong KwaZulu community which is largely dependent on the mill for its livelihood.”

I quote further from the report:

Here again, if a decision has been made to support another industry in another area, we will welcome that. It should not, however, be at the expense of an existing industry; it should not be at the expense of a well-settled, working community together with a well-settled farming community. This sugar industry, which is only 25 km away from Eshowe, provided a nucleus, an economic stability, to Eshowe when it was at one stage the capital of Zululand. I want to make a plea for the authorities to reconsider their decision and for any intention to remove the sugar mill to any other area in the Eastern Transvaal to be stayed and other possibilities sought to upgrade the sugar growers in the Eastern Transvaal.

Was that not an election promise that was made?

I know the hon member for Stanger has an interest in the KaNgwane area. He has most probably been piloting that.

The people there are my interest.

I make this point very strongly. We cannot afford an exercise of this nature. Although we must have about 800 Indian families one should look at the thousands of Black communities that are going to be involved here.

There has been a strong move over the years to uplift our Black brethren and to leave them— anything up to 1 300 farmers—in distress today is absolutely unjustifiable. We must make every effort to ensure the stability of this industry.

With this I want to compliment my colleague here. He has a difficult task to perform although this is merely to tide us over till the main Budget. We of course had to budget in accordance with the circumstances and in accordance with the needs of our people. We only hope that the country will not be faced with any further unforeseen catastrophes and that we will therefore gain further momentum with regard to housing, welfare, education and agriculture etc.

Mr Chairman, I feel humble standing in this august Chamber this afternoon. I want to pay tribute to the former hon member for Eastern Transvaal for the contribution he made here. I want to wish him well in his new position as Transvaal MEC.

My tribute also goes to the voters of the Eastern Transvaal for the confidence they have placed in me by voting me into Parliament. My gratitude also goes to all those who assisted me with my campaign, which was not an easy one.

The constituency is a massive one and covers almost 50% of the surface area of the Transvaal. It begins along the fringe of Johannesburg on the boundary of Alberton and Heidelberg and proceeds along the borders of the Free State, Natal, Swaziland, Mozambique and Kruger National Park and then goes south including places like Tzaneen, Duiwelskloof, Marble Hall, Groblersdal and Springs along its western boundaries. The problems of our people there vary from town to town and from region to region. People are living behind their businesses, in small dorps, enclaves, and on farms. Their problems have been addressed to relieve their difficulties. The entire constituency also has great potential for future development with many opportunities for our people and the region as a whole.

I will at all times make representations on behalf of my constituents and strive to maintain the dignity of this House.

Mr Chairman, first of all I would like to refer to the first part of page 1 of the speech by the hon the Minister of the Budget this afternoon where he says:

That I accept, but there is a flaw. Secondly, the following is stated on page 2:

However, the hon the Minister of Housing, instead of addressing the system, made a personal attack on the hon member for Springfield.

It is beyond my ability to comprehend why a Minister of the Cabinet should attack hon members on this side day in and day out, instead of solving the problems of the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] Whether it be a party or individuals, this Chamber is not a place to wreak vengeance on individuals. A Cabinet Minister or a Minister of the Ministers’ Council has a responsibility to South Africa and its people. It is disgusting to hear a member of the Cabinet and of the Minister’s Council wreaking vengeance on members day in and day out. He spits his venom like a cobra and this state of affairs reflects badly on members of Parliament in this House as well as the other two Houses.

That being the question, the housing problem in this country of ours is a burning issue amongst all people of our community who are non-Whites. Because of the pigmentation of their skin, this community has paid and is paying a heavy penalty. The machinery whereby this penalty is inflicted, is the Group Areas Act.

Were it not so, then this statement made yesterday by the hon the Minister concerning identification of and lengthy negotiations on land for housing, would not arise. Land is available, and the hon the Minister of Housing mentioned yesterday some incredible figure relating to housing. I blame the hon the Minister in charge of housing for those prices, since he let people know that they wanted that particular land for housing.

That being the question, the Administration of the House of Delegates considers that people in Natal are not humans. They think people in Natal are made of blocks. They think the people in Natal are rain-proof, because 78% of the Indian population resides in Natal, but if one looks at the housing projects carried out, 89% goes to the Transvaal. It seems to me that one must have a by-election in the country; when that happens, then that constituency gets housing, like Tongaat. [Interjections.] Immediately there is a byelection in an area, that area gets considered for housing. Tongaat had been forgotten totally until the by-election came up.

In 1984, in the Camperdown constituency, the Marachele report was brought out by the Development and Services Board.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

I will not take questions from juvenile members here. I will not take questions from people like that, with that attitude.

The point I was making was, that in Hammarsdale …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: This hon member called another hon member a juvenile member. I contend that that is unparliamentary.

Of course, he is a junior member. [Interjections.]

Order! What words did the hon member for Camperdown use?

A juvenile member of Parliament. Juvenile as in junior, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I was on the point of saying that in Hammarsdale a piece of land was identified and a feasibility study was undertaken with regard to infrastructure. A report was issued, stating that the land was available at R2 500 per hectare. I handed that report to the Ministers’ Council. Up until today that offer has not been taken, simply because there has as yet not been a by-election. [Interjections.] They are holding that lollypop in abeyance, either for the next general election or to wait for me to die or resign so that there may be a by-election. Then maybe the people of Cato Ridge would benefit. In Cool Air and in Dalton there is readily available land with all the infrastructure, roads, water and electricity laid on. That land is lying idle in spite of my representations to the Ministry of Housing. They talk about negotiating land deals and housing projects, but that land has been lying idle since 1979. The only answer I get is that I should speak to the Development and Services Board. My enquiries have revealed that nobody ever spoke to the DSB about using that land for the building of houses. There is a crying need for housing in the Dalton area. Three hundred families are without homes and many are living three families to a three-bedroomed home. There again, they are waiting for a by-election so that they can offer lollypops to the community and promise houses.

The hon the Minister of Housing in particular should remember the saying that procrastination is the thief of time. Ultimately that Ministry will lose out. They accuse others of being bankrupt, but they are bankrupt of ideas and bankrupt of energy. They are bankrupt of intellectual thought to think ahead because they are nothing but self-centred, political jugglers.

Mr Chairman, I wish to take up the note upon which my hon colleague left, namely the question of bankruptcy. I think that members of Parliament can be very solvent on other people’s money—taxpayers’ money. However, let us talk about being solvent on our own money for a change. I refer to this, because the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council refers to his own colleagues as simpletons. [Interjections.] I think that they are so bankrupt in his party— with respect to my colleagues, these are not my own words—that their own hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has a certain opinion of them. A recent article in the Sunday Times Extra is headed: The “Raj is back into the fray”. Here we see what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has to say about his own fellow-members and I quote:

These are quotations attributed directly to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. This is the opinion he has of his own members— “simpletons”. He calls them “cockroaches” operating in the dark but pretending to be loyalists in the open. [Interjections.] I should like hon members to read this if they have not yet had an opportunity to do so, and to assess the situation for themselves. [Interjections.]

I now want to go on to deal with certain basic issues. [Interjections.] I want to refer to another issue which made headline news and which has aroused the community. My colleague, the hon member for Southern Natal, raised this very issue in an unemotional fashion and made an earnest appeal for some action to be taken in the interests of the community, of the child, and of education. I am referring to this rather obnoxious-looking photograph which would make headlines in any blue magazine.

Fiat Lux! [Interjections.]

I do not know. I trust that it will not appear in the Fiat Lux, even if that hon member does not like the Fiat Lux. There was a great deal of public reaction to this. I am perturbed at what I read in the newspapers over the weekend. What I read in the newspapers over the weekend was that this particular matter had now been taken to court. However, I have a few questions to pose. I do not deal with the court action itself.

I should like to know whether, in instituting the court action, he invoked subsection 4 of section 17 of the Indians Education Act. Did he act in his own capacity? It would appear to me from the newspaper articles prima facie that the responsible person was, in fact, relieved of his post of acting principal. Why was this action taken? I think the hon the Minister will have to explain to us at some stage or other what action was taken because rumour very clearly has it that this was merely a deliberate ploy so that the person in question could go to court and have himself reinstated.

It is common knowledge that the affected person has been extremely actively involved in electioneering and in canvassing openly and blatantly for the ruling party. I have no problem with members identifying with a political party but this fellow was extremely closely involved with the party and perhaps the party does owe him a debt of gratitude for the manner in which he conducts himself in favour of that party.

That brings me back to the Indian Education Act.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I merely wish to mention that this matter is now sub judice and that it may not be discussed further. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Stanger may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I did not go into the details of the court action. I am not talking about the court action. I am merely restating what has already been printed in the newspapers and I am asking the hon the Minister how he instituted the action. Did he invoke subsection 4 of section 17? Did he act in his own capacity in that particular regard? I think the point has been made. He should read Hansard and he will discover that.

Order! I should just like to tell hon members that as far as this particular matter is concerned hon members may speak about events that led up to the court action. However, as the matter is sub judice, the basis of the court action and whatever happens thereafter is not for the House to discuss.

Yes, Mr Chairman, that is why I was moving on to something else. I was not going into detail.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I was referring to the affected person and I said that he was very much involved in electioneering and that I thought the majority party owed him a debt of gratitude. He is quite open about it. Newspaper articles report the fact that he says that local government elections should be fought on party-political lines. He made that statement on behalf of the ruling party. It is fine for him to do that, but I believe that if a child attends a particular school, he could come from a home that has a Solidarity background. Another child could come from a home that has…

You are dragging this debate down to a very low level.

I shall talk about whatever I want to.

Do not bring party politics into this.

When the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council spoke I did not interrupt him and I would suggest that he restrain himself from interrupting me. I have had enough of his interruptions when I am speaking. He has a habit of interrupting me whenever I speak. [Interjections.]

He can continue to deal with it in the way he wants to. [Interjections.] I want to make it very clear that I have here the Indians Education Act. This Act stipulates what qualifies as irregular. It gives a definition of misconduct. I says on p 267, and I quote:

I believe there is a reason why this is stated. As I said earlier, when children who go to school come from various political backgrounds, a teacher cannot be involved in high-profile party-political affiliation, because it does affect the child in the classroom situation. I believe this was well-intended. From a recent article it is clear that even the White schools are now concerned that politics is entering the classroom. A stop must be put to this. I want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to this. He may be unaware thereof, and I want to ensure that this is stopped.

Earlier on in the debate the question of the elections was referred to, as well as the state of the Official Opposition, to the extent that an unconventional thing was done in this House, where one of the hon members of the ruling party proposed a motion asking for the resignation of members of Solidarity, the Official Opposition in this House. They want to have an open cheque, but nobody must keep a check and balance on them.

Is that the cheque you wrote out in Tongaat?

Mr Chairman, that is what it is all about. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows who gave him a cheque in Tongaat. I have no building companies so that I could afford giving him cheques.

Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, I am not taking any questions. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like the hon member to mention to this House whose contractor gave me a cheque in Tongaat.

Mr Chairman, I will not answer that question. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council interjected and I responded to his interjection.

You are now in a jam!

Mr Chairman, I want to continue.

We will have a commission on that!

Have a commission of inquiry, Mr Chairman! What are we afraid of?

You are now in trouble! [Interjections.]

Yes, have your commission.

Mr Chairman, I want to continue by saying that if the ruling party is so sure of itself, since we lost so many by-elections, they should go for a general election. We are prepared to give them the opportunity. They should go for a general election and see if they can win all the seats. In the by-elections the Official Opposition was at a disadvantage. I agree with what the hon member for Camperdown said, namely that we, as the opposition party, are not in a position to make promises. The hon member for Camperdown is perfectly correct when he asks: Must an MP die, must an MP resign before problems in his constituency are addressed? That is the situation. In Tongaat it was the same story. In the Eastern Transvaal it was the same story. One cannot deny this. I have been talking to colleagues and friends who have said to me that they like Solidarity, but they are going to support the ruling party, because if they do not support them they have been told that they will not get housing and various other things. This is what was said.

Who is chairman of the housing committee on that town board?

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should address the House when he has an opportunity.

You are in trouble. You are shivering because of false statements.

Nobody is in trouble, Mr Chairman.

I would like to know from the hon the Minister of the Budget whether his department sanctions the use of public funds, or the Ministry’s funds, for party-political propaganda?

That has never been done.

I have news for hon members. This particular pamphlet I have here was sent out by the Ministry in an official envelope to voters in Lenasia.

Somebody misinformed you.

Nobody misinformed me.

It says here “Vote NPP for dynamic leadership”. [Interjections.] I will show the House more examples just now.

The question of housing has been dealt with by various speakers in the House. I would like to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget if we are getting value for money insofar as the funds utilised for housing are concerned. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said himself that the Indians are paying a substantially higher price than the Whites.

I want to have it placed on record that the average price for urbanisation purposes in respect of White areas is R8 000 per ha. The figure appears in the report on land affairs of that department. The figure for Indian areas is R25 000 to R30 000 and we even hear of figures like R40 000 and R50 000. I want to say that this nonsense has to stop. I would like to know what happens in reality. Where does the money go that constitutes the difference between R8 000 and R30 000? Why does this inflation exist? The matter has to be investigated very carefully because somewhere along the line someone is taking the Indian community for a ride.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that he would like to see the involvement of private organisations and that he supports private enterprise under certain conditions. Is advertising one of the conditions of private enterprise? Is it one of the conditions under which we give them land? Is that how we involve private enterprise?

Nobody in business would spend thousands of rand to advertise in a weekend newspaper unless they have some interest. It is unheard-of, and it is the first time that I have come across such a situation. Does it mean that the people who advertise will be given preferential treatment? Or have they already been given preferential treatment and are they now repaying their dues? Is this what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council calls “private enterprise under certain conditions”? Is this one of the conditions? [Interjections.] It appeared in three newspapers over the weekend.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? I want to put it to him that those advertisements that appeared in the public newspapers are an acknowledgement of the good work done by the hon the Minister of Housing.

Order! That is not a question. The hon member for Stanger may proceed.

I am glad that the hon member Mr Thaver said that it is an acknowledgement of the good work done by the hon the Minister of Housing. The question is: Good work for whom?

For Padianagar!

Yes, Padianagar. I challenge the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to go and sell property which my agency handled at Padianagar at R3 500 …

What does your agency charge today?

That is a different matter.

Do not quote figures from 10 years ago.

I gave those properties away at R3 500 which the State could not do.

That was 10 years ago.

No, it was four years ago. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should get his facts right.

You should get rid of your agency. You should always act as an MP.

My dealings are above board. My books are audited and I do not hide anything under the table. I am registered with the board and I would welcome a commission of inquiry. [Interjections.]

When I look at everything that takes place around us and at the actions of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I want to make an earnest appeal today. If the House wants to make progress and if we want use own affairs to achieve our ultimate objectives there will have to be dignity and decorum in this House. Just because the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does not like what is said by a speaker in the opposition benches he overreacts. It is unfortunate that he does that because it exposes a weakness in him. Does he do it out of weakness or because of a guilty conscience? Why does he overreact like this? Hon members often complain that he overreacts all the time and interrupts speakers on this side of the House.

I would like to suggest that if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council really feels that all we are saying is incorrect and that the things we referred to are not correct, then he has a remedy in hand.

You approach my members at nighttime. Is that the remedy? If I got a statement from them you would stink. [Interjections.]

That is the level of the man! That is the level of his debating. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council say that the hon member for Stanger will stink or some words to that effect?

Mr Chairman, I used the word stink but in a different context.

Order! Will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council please repeat the context in which it was used?

Mr Chairman, I stated that if we produced a remedy of what happens at night, that stinks.

Mr Chairman, I do not know what remedy he has at night, but I trust that he is using contraceptives to avoid any situation. [Interjections.]

It is unfortunate that one has to respond in this manner to the hon Chairman, but that is the only language which he seems to understand. If one talks to him in a nice way it doesn’t seem to get across to him.

You are shivering.

He thinks I am shivering, but he shivers every time someone says: “commission of inquiry”. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, did the hon Leader of the Official Opposition not challenge the hon member for Lenasia East to repeat a statement outside this House?

Yes, Mr Chairman. My hon leader did challenge the hon member to repeat the statement outside as he was so sure of the facts. But he also said, notwithstanding whether he repeated the statement inside or outside, that there should still be a commission of inquiry. He was prepared to subject himself to a commission of inquiry. I would appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to subject himself and agree to a commission of inquiry. That would put a stop to this acrimony in this House once and for all.

Coming back to other issues, I should like to inform this House that I shall not go into details about these issues in this debate. I shall deal with those aspects in the appropriate Budget debate. I say that a lot has to be done insofar as the question of housing and education is concerned. This is especially the case in my constituency where I have had problems with training centres, but those aspects I shall deal with in detail in a subsequent debate.

I should like to suggest that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council looks at the issues once and for all, has a commission of inquiry appointed and clears his desk once and for all.

Mr Speaker, I rise here in support of the Part Appropriation Bill of my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget. In doing so I want to put forward the number of developments that are taking place in various directions such as housing, education, health and welfare and agriculture. For this purpose we require additional funds and the hon the Minister has very ably put forward his demands for the bridging finance required by us.

Earlier on the hon member for Laudium mentioned that influx control laws were creating great problems in various areas and I fully agree with him. The fact that influx control laws have been removed and that people are settling in shacks all over the country, not properly organised by municipalities, has created a health hazard. If disease spreads out from such settlements it then has no racial boundaries. I agree that if it is done on an organised basis by municipalities and those institutions that are in charge of this, that kind of control can go a long way towards minimising the health hazards.

The hon member also mentioned his concern about teacher appointments last year. I want to tell him that as a former Minister of the Budget he should know that if he had provided enough funds, the hon the Minister of Education would have no problem as far as the appointment of all available teachers was concerned. My dilemma arose from the fact that we had more qualified teachers than we required. However, the administration did its very best to find jobs for them. I have explained this before and I do not think this is as yet the end of the story. It will come up again. I do want to explain, however, that that happened because there was a drop in the growth rate of the Indian population. I do not hold it against the hon member for Springfield for asking why I was still going to build a training college. I shall tell him later on that Springfield College has become outdated, not he. I am not saying the hon member for Springfield is outdated; I am saying the Springfield Training College is outdated as far as facilities are concerned. There will therefore be a need for a replacement for that building, even though it will not be on the scale we had proposed earlier. I shall give the hon member a few more details a little later.

Coming back to the hon member for Laudium I want to say that all teachers are being appointed in a temporary capacity now simply because the department is not in a position to offer all the teachers substantive posts. Even those that are needed by the department are being appointed in a temporary capacity, with the hope that they will eventually be appointed on a permanent basis. The department has in its employ several hundred teachers over and above the number required because of the new system of financing for education. That is all the new system of financing will allow. We have to keep within that allocation. The department should in fact be complimented—and I do so from here—on the manner in which it has been coping with the situation thus far. I know it is a very sensitive issue and I know it will come up again during my budget debate, but I can assure hon members that teachers have been regarded as human beings. They were given temporary positions last year so that they would be in a position to earn a living. I know they did not receive all the benefits in a temporary position but that situation will be rectified once they are appointed permanently.

We then had the hon member for Cavendish who said that the Group Areas Act must go. I fully agree with him and I do not think that this will be the last word on the Group Areas Act either. I agree with him that it has created difficulties, and this was debated fully yesterday. In the field of education itself I fully agree with him that it created a number of social and psychological difficulties, and, of course, cultural disruptions took place when there were mass movements of school populations. It is very painful to cast one’s memory back to such movements but suffice it to say that it is a thing of the past and I hope we do not have to move people in that way again, although the Act is still with us.

My department is having difficulty at the moment with people moving from one area to another because it is unable to move the schools with them.

We have got to build in new areas. That creates a difficulty. However, I say that while own affairs remain, we shall have to go on working within the system until, of course, we have dismantled that system, and general affairs becomes the order of the day.

I come now to the hon member for Springfield, and I want to say something to him about what I said earlier by way of interjection, that I was not going to build that college. I meant that the original college that had been planned, was not going to be built. However, we cannot delay the establishment of services such as a modern, well-equipped college of education. [Interjections.] Well, I have been trying to put that kind of view across, namely that we wanted the big training college for a national strategy, to train all kinds of people, and people of all races. My dilemma arises out of the fact that when we had the surplus teachers, there was an eagerness on the part of other communities to employ them. However, when the realities were faced, we had a problem. If the Black communities were to replace unqualified teachers with qualified Indian teachers, then they told me they had a problem. If the same thing happened with our members in the Representatives, they also had a problem. There was a stark reality they were faced with, with the result that we were not able to get our teachers employed in other departments.

My department needs a purpose-built modern college, and if this is not done, the hon member for Springfield will be the first to criticise me, I am sure. I am therefore looking forward to having an institution built with all the modern facilities. This will bring us up to date with any other community.

I pleaded at the very highest levels that we should rationalise teacher education and open tertiary educational institutions to all races. The hon member talked about Edgewood College. We have not failed; we have tried even that. If Edgewood College were available to us today, I can assure this House that we would stop building the new college or any other college available to us. Why should we spend money to build a new college if one is available?

However, in the absence of the availability of other institutions, we shall have to go ahead and build. As long as I am compelled by the laws of the land to serve the Indian community, I shall do so to the best of my ability. I want to emphasise that the building of the new replacement college will only be undertaken when funds become available.

The hon member for Redhill mentioned the matter of sports and other facilities—I think he spoke about community facilities. I want to assure him that my department is not found wanting as far as this is concerned. I also wish to tell him, and inform this House, that we have already engaged coaches as far as certain sports facilities are concerned, especially swimming. The next will be tennis and cricket, and we shall be progressing along those lines.

I also wish to inform this House that greater demands are being made by the community for the use of facilities at State schools. That is also being considered. In some cases buildings are being used to the maximum. In other places they are not being used to that extent, but I am happy to say that the community is becoming very much alive to community facilities.

The hon member for Stanger raised the matter of political parties and the participation of teachers in politics. I want to say to him and to others that teachers are also human beings, and as such they are allowed to take part in politics, provided they do not make themselves heard from platforms…

Or during their working hours.

And not during working hours unless they are, of course, on leave.

They must not use their positions.

They must not use their official positions.

So you are aware of that? Thank you.

I am quite aware of that and as far as that particular teacher is concerned I have already mentioned that this is sub judice. He will be given the privilege of audi alteram partem and until that case is heard I appeal to members to … [Interjections.]

Order!

We will continue to work in the interests of our people within the concept of own affairs until such time as this concept is done away with and all matters become general affairs. We will then work together for the welfare of all people of this country.

Mr Speaker, I think this is your first visit to this new Chamber of ours. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you here and to express the wish that we shall see you here often.

Thank you.

Mr Speaker, the success of the tricameral system of Government shall depend on the degree of credibility built up by the two Houses of the people of colour, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. This will depend on the possibility of the goods that can be delivered by the hon members of these Houses to the people who have voted them into these Houses to represent them at central Government level. A date has been set, eight months from now, for the election of the Management Committees throughout the country. The present members who are serving their people in various areas, are looking to the members of Parliament for assistance in the achievement of the goals set in their constituencies. When impediments are placed in the way of moderate people who wish to serve their communities for the betterment of the country, it must be expected that the system will fail. From experience representations made by White members of Parliament to the Ministers concerned in various matters are attended to practically forthwith, whereas the cries and pleas of Indian members of Parliament remain unanswered for indefinite and long periods—particularly where it concerns land matters. This causes frustration among our people who place their trust in the working of the system and who become so disheartened that at the time of election the call by the radicals to refrain from voting takes effect. This is to the detriment of the peace-loving people of the country.

I come from the constituency of Benoni on the East-Rand, where the Indian population increases by the day owing to influx from Natal to the Transvaal. The first Transvaal industrial area on the road from Natal is Benoni. We therefore have a greater number of Indians settling in Benoni than anywhere else in the Transvaal. Owing to the shortage of land—albeit an artificial shortage—any available accommodation in Benoni, including all outbuildings, is over-occupied. Motor cars are not parked in garages but people live in such places. During our last election I was canvassing in this area and had to enter several homes late at night. I found bodies of children sleeping in lounges, sitting rooms and dining rooms and had to walk over them. [Interjections.]

Living bodies, I hope.

Living bodies, not dead bodies, but they are sleeping and therefore they are bodies.

With regard to the cries for land by myself and my two hon colleagues from Actonville, I am proud to say that today as we stand in this House, Benoni represents 10% of the entire House of Delegates. There are four hon members of Parliament from the Benoni area, and Benoni is the most poorly endowed area in the whole of South Africa as far as the Indian community is concerned. [Interjections.]

The cries for land by myself and my two hon colleagues—of course, my third colleague only arrived a few days ago—over the past decade, have fallen on deaf ears. We need land. We have needed land for the past number of years. We have asked for land but we have been unable to obtain it. We have made enquiries about land, but nothing has come of them. However, when a White MP from a neighbouring town goes and makes representations to the Minister about a piece of rejected land, an inquiry is immediately held. This is frustrating. It is frustrating to the community at large.

We have a technical college in Benoni which is about to be vacated by the White community. This is a fully equipped college which could be of benefit to the community. We have been making enquiries about this college for so many years but those enquiries have not borne any fruit. This is something which the people of the East Rand require. The Indian community on the East Rand is increasing by leaps and bounds and we need facilities of this nature. Unfortunately, in matters of this nature the final decision lies with the White man and because it lies with the White man the Indian community is being deprived of what is rightfully theirs.

One cannot expect everyone to be a white collar worker. Therefore, in order to eliminate the cries about unemployment, we must have facilities of this nature. This is a great necessity.

The issue of a clinic for Actonville, where the Indian community numbers in excess of 30 000, has been raging for a long, long time.

Those cries have also fallen on deaf ears.

Yes, they have fallen on deaf ears all along but now there is a ray of hope because we now have a Minister who is really attending to this matter and I think we shall see some action in this regard. He has given me an assurance and I have faith in the new Minister of Health Services and Welfare and I want to commend him. [Interjections.] I want to congratulate him.

What we need in a community of that nature, where we have in excess of 30 000 people, is a community hall. We do not have any recreational facilities. Is that not a breeding ground for crime? If these needs of ours can be addressed with a view to eliminating the needs of the people, this will be a healthy situation for the community at large. Therefore, I say that the money that is being requested should be put to good use by providing for the needs of our people. This would do some good for the community at large—not just the Indian community, but the broader South African community as well. I think the money is needed in this area. I support this Part Appropriation Bill but I ask those White Ministers who are making the decisions please to hasten those decisions. I know that the machinery of Government works very slowly but I say we should speed it up. Let us speed it up for the sake of those who need it. That is my appeal.

Mr Speaker, I have much understanding for the hon member for Actonville when he speaks of underdeveloped communities. I, too, come from a community which is largely underdeveloped. All the hon member for Actonville speaks about is also near and dear to my heart.

I have in front of me the Part Appropriation Bill for both the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. Doing some quick arithmetic I see that if the Appropriation is based on the 4:2:1 formula, we have in some respect been shortchanged to the tune of about R90 million. I make this observation since the hon member for Actonville made such an impassioned plea for development. I feel that if we had in fact received 50% of what the House of Representatives received in this Part Appropriation, we would probably be able to resolve some of the problems he is talking about.

I come from the flood-stricken area of Ladysmith. I am saddened by the suffering of the people of Ladysmith. The continual flooding they have been subjected to over the past couple of months is heart-rending. The people have hardly recovered from the September floods and have now been subjected to another flood of the same magnitude. Insurance companies have withdrawn their support for these people, while many of them have in fact contributed to insurance policies over the years. In September they made claims for flood damages and after the claims were met, their policies were withdrawn. For this reason I am hoping that the area will be declared a national disaster area, so that some assistance for these people will be forthcoming, so that they may once again rehabilitate themselves.

Two Indian youths, both 18 years of age, one Ronnie Sidhoo and one Anesh Ramphal, gave their lives in saving the life of another person. This underscores human values in South Africa. We find that when people are in trouble, when we need to assist one another, colour does not come into play. These two young men did not look at the colour of a person. They looked at a person in distress and, together with two others, they attempted to rescue a Black man. He was holding on to some burglar bars at a shop while the water was coming up fast. They thought that he would be washed away and so four of them tied themselves to a rope and attempted to rescue this Black man. As fate would have it, however, the rescuers lost their lives and the person they attempted to rescue was saved. To me this is an indication that in South Africa we can conduct ourselves as human beings when the need arises.

Speaking of the suffering of the flood victims in Ladysmith, I would be failing in my duty if I did not place on record my utter disappointment about the fact that I have failed over the last six months to have much-needed houses built. I have been struggling to get 60 subeconomic houses built which were approved by our Housing Development Board in June last year.

We have 60 serviced sites for these houses but the local authority would not make the necessary application. I have to record this in this debate because I feel sore about it. Six months ago we had approval that these houses could be built and we also received appeals that they should be built together with 50 starter homes which were also approved of—we had serviced sites for these—as well as 20 houses required for flood victims. However, all my attempts were in vain and I want to record my disappointment. I feel hurt on behalf of my people. I tried my best but my pleas fell on deaf ears. [Interjections.] I am not going into details now—they will be available—but I can say that it was the municipality that failed in the efforts.

In the past I received the assistance of the former Minister of Housing, the hon member for Redhill. He gave his departmental support to have houses built in Howick.

It can be done in Ladysmith too.

Yes, we could have done that in Ladysmith too but we did not.

I am now making a plea that where we have municipalities who for reasons known only to themselves are reluctant and do not want to go ahead with much needed housing projects but delay them instead, we as an administration must…

Override them.

I agree with the hon member for Southern Natal that we must override them. We must find the ways and means at this level to say to them that if they do not want to build the houses we will see to it that it gets done. It is possible and we must do it.

I say this because people approach me daily on the matter. After the floods I had many more calls than usual. If these houses had been built in the past many people would not have been subjected to the floods because they would have been rehoused and therefore not affected. However, I failed in achieving that.

Another matter that contributed to the delay in housing—hon members have referred to this—is the Group Areas Act. We in this House have asked repeatedly that the Group Areas Act should be repealed. I am convinced of the necessity of the repeal of the Group Areas Act …

And the Land Act.

… and the Land Act, the Population Registration Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. As far as I am concerned all these Acts inhibit the normal advancement of the nation as well as human freedom. However, notwithstanding our position to the Group Areas Act we have to use it in order to provide for much needed housing.

We are concerned with the delays that this Act imposes in the provision of land for the much needed housing. We identify land as suitable for housing and we then ask the Department of Constitutional Planning and Development to make the necessary investigations and to proclaim it as a group area for our occupation. However, what do we find? The process of investigation takes up to two years and in some instances even longer. I have repeatedly asked my colleagues in the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning to cut the corners so that we can have the timely identification of land.

I will quote one case where I lost out on much needed land in the Bergville area. A farmer wished to dispose of a farm at a very reasonable price, a price which I term a bargain. Improvements had been made on the farm and there was valuable equipment. All this was available to us at a bargain price.

We asked that the area be declared for Indian occupation as the law prevents us from acquiring property which is not in a proclaimed group area. The delays compelled this farmer to dispose of the farm to someone else. Now we have been offered land for housing in the Bergville area at twice the cost of the land that was available to us two months ago. So whilst the Act has done a lot of harm since it was implemented in this country, its implementation still has the effect of delaying much needed housing.

This afternoon I want to conclude by saying that in this House we have recently had many accusations and counter accusations thrown across the floor. If these accusations and counter accusations had the effect of bringing about an advancement and an amelioration of the suffering of our people then I would say it was serving some purpose. However, I cannot honestly say that the accusations and counter accusations and insults that we are hurling at one another are contributing towards the well-being of our people. I want to lodge an appeal that we need to do everything possible in Parliament and outside Parliament to bring about an understanding between people and an advancement of people. We came to Parliament to see that the injustices of the past are removed. I want to be convinced that what we say and what we do in this House is in fact contributing towards removing the injustices of the past and contributing towards the upliftment of the community we are dedicated to serving.

Mr Speaker, our biggest problem is to obtain more land for housing to wipe out our waiting list. Without money we cannot obtain land and without land we cannot build houses.

We therefore appeal to the hon the Minister of Finance to find more money for housing and land. In the Transvaal we thank the hon the Minister of Housing for trying his best to wipe out our housing backlog with the limited funds at his disposal.

Mr Speaker, when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke on this Part Appropriation Bill he mentioned, during the course of his speech, that our performance in this House should be a manifestation of what we espoused to get for our community when we accepted this tricameral parliament system as a means of communication. Then the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council very cynically remarked that it is to provide services in own areas.

I realised what he intended by this remark. I want to make it abundantly clear that we are here not as protagonists of own affairs. We are using this three-legged horse as a means …

Order! The hon member will not refer to Parliament as a three-legged horse and he will withdraw that immediately.

I withdraw it.

We are using this tricameral Parliament as a means of communication with the Government and the people we represent in the meantime. I want this to be adequately driven home to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Getting down to the Part Appropriation Bill itself, I observe that the hon the Minister of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services says that the identification of land is gaining momentum, particularly for housing for the Indian community.

Most of us from the Natal area will recall that there are approximately 20 000 people on the waiting list in Durban. For this reason more land has to be identified for the purpose of housing. This should not take place only in the north, since the Department of Housing is at present making more progress in that area. We should, however, also like to see some improvements being made in the south-west of the Durban area. There has been a report by the Durban City Council in which it was stated that housing projects were envisaged for the south-west area of Chatsworth, but development costs are prohibitive. I would like the hon the Minister to take a serious look at this matter and make a second attempt at this important aspect in the south-western area of Chatsworth.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member aware of the fact that in an area adjacent to the area he mentions another local government body has submitted a report that it is possible to provide 3 000 using units?

Oh, yes. I am. While I am on the subject I also want to refer to the report that was submitted by the Durban City Council, which was a negative report.

The hon the Minister also points out that stringent discipline demanded by the hon the State President has to be taken cognisance of. I fully support this stringent discipline with regard to any financial institution.

I observe in this report that was submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts last year that there were some miscellaneous losses amounting to about R58 372. These miscellaneous losses were the result of several miscellaneous causes during the year under review, particularly with thefts of order books. These are some of the aspects about which the officials have to be directed to take adequate care. When they park their cars, any important documents should be safely put away where they are not as easily accessible to anyone. The report does not say whether a car was broken into. It merely states that a loss of R6 020 resulted from five cases of theft and misappropriation of order forms. This sort of thing does not do credit to a good administration. I therefore implore the hon the Minister of the Budget to instruct the respective departments to take adequate care when such documents are left in motor cars.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the Part Appropriation Bill. Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that the hon the Minister in charge put in a very good Bill.

Now, coming to group areas, every member of the community wants the Group Areas Act to be repealed. They are quite correct; it is a cancer, and it must go. I only hope that legislation is not forced upon us to celebrate the Group Areas Act, which is approximately 38 years old. What I mean is that I hope that 50 years will not go by so that we can celebrate it then. I am sure that every beginning has an end, and this end must come too, no doubt.

As far as the Indian Market is concerned, I am satisfied that that market will be built very shortly.

As far as the hon member for Stanger is concerned, he moved a motion to dissolve this House and hold an election. I am satisfied that those words do not come from the bottom of his heart.

Mr Speaker, I just wish to respond to some of the points made by the hon member for Redhill. I want to give him and other hon members an assurance that as regards the question of the disparity in pensions, we have the documents here that have been prepared. Everything hinges on finance. If we could get the finance, we would be able to ensure that we would reach parity as regards pensions, welfare grants, etc are concerned. We require millions of rands to reach parity. However, I wish to give him the assurance that the matter is well in hand.

The other question that was raised was the burning issue of the means test. This particular aspect has been of great concern to all of us, because I am aware that almost on a daily basis I receive several letters, not only from my colleagues as hon members of Parliament, but from various people. As far as the means test is concerned there is positively a disparity of almost 50% among Indians, Coloureds and Whites. We have again prepared documentation, and hopefully, with the Health Ministers’ Council which has now come into being, we should be able to try to reach some consensus. It is a fact that the Social Welfare Act of 1973 that we are presently administering, restricts itself strictly; when it speaks of a Minister, then this means a White Minister. Unfortunately the current Minister does not have such powers.

Both these matters are of deep concern to us, however, since I am aware of the problems confronting our community. Because of the means test we find that very many of the applicants have to be refused because if the value of your property exceeds R28 000 you do not qualify, as against a White person who may own property of up to R42 000. We have great difficulty refusing this, but unfortunately we are restricted by the Act itself.

As regards the matter raised by the hon member for Springfield, namely Phoenix Hospital, let me give him the assurance that plans have been finalised for a 750-bed hospital, the cost of which is estimated to be R72 million. As far as equipment is concerned, the cost is estimated at R22 million.

I want to give this House an undertaking that, come what may, in 1989 this building will get off the ground. Mention was also made of the psychiatric wards at the King George V Hospital. Hon members will recall that a while ago I made a statement that our department has acquired a home which was previously owned by a sugar baron at Hazelmere Dam, Canelands, known as Hazelmere House. The refurbishing thereof is nearly completed and within three months we will be able to use this as a halfway house for psychiatric patients. I am aware that the patients who are at present being treated at King George V Hospital thereafter return to the streets, which is a great disservice to those patients. We will positively be able to ensure the provision of the necessary service, beds and accommodation for them—proper professional service. This will be at Hazelmere. The rehabilitation centre was a topic for discussion as far back as the days of the SAIC and it has eventually come about at Newlands West and it should be ready for occupation in May 1988.

The hon member Mr Thaver mentioned the refusal of applications for disability grants. I am fully aware of this, but unfortunately there is a problem. The medical team that looks at these applications is mainly guided by the medical reports from the district surgeon. Unfortunately, as a Minister I have no right to interfere with a professional report. At the same time I am aware that the medical team looks at all the applications on a very scientific basis. There again, we find that people who have been receiving grants for up to 17 years are now being refused these grants. I, too, have difficulty in establishing exactly why this is being done. I have raised this matter in discussions because, unlike the White community, the Indian community has no such privilege as sheltered employment. I fully support the views expressed by those hon members who would like to see these grants reinstated. I have already given the necessary instructions as far as that is concerned. The matter is well in hand and I handle each separate case personally.

I am pleased that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has mentioned the health and welfare programme. We have a programme for five years in advance and in order to implement it we require finance. For that reason I fully support the Appropriation Bill that has been proposed.

Mr Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, it is with pleasure that I wish to support the Bill before this House. The sea and its living resources have from time immemorial been a valuable asset to mankind. With our growing population it should be evident that we should not only conserve this important resource, but expand and develop it as well.

I wish to point out that Roman Dutch Law has for centuries upheld the principle that the sea and the fish in the sea are res communes. They are common property, free to all men to use and exploit and subject only to regulation by the State. Thus the State, as custodian of the Republic’s marine resources, is charged with the responsibility of facilitating the rational and orderly harvesting of the resources to the maximum benefit of the community.

In the past the erroneous belief was held by some that resources of the sea were inexhaustible and could be exploited at will. Experience has taught us that over-fishing leads to disaster and there are many examples that can be cited throughout the world of the collapse of resources resulting from this approach.

The control over sea fisheries and matters connected therewith is presently regulated by the Sea Fisheries Act of 1973 which serves as the basis for this Bill. Much work and research have preceded this new Bill and I hold the opinion that South Africa will have reason to be proud of this piece of legislation. Part of the Bill empowers the Minister to determine a general policy with regard to the conservation and optimum utilisation of the South African living marine resources.

Every hon member of this House knows from the media of the increasing number of contraventions of the provisions of the existing Act. In an attempt to combat the vast number of offences effectively, clause 49 of the Bill empowers the Director-General to pay remuneration to an informant irrespective of whether the informant or material proof leads to a prosecution or conviction.

To protect and exploit the marine resources along our 3 000 km coastline and in our one million square km fishery zone, and in an attempt to call to account those who frequently exploit these resources in an irresponsible manner, the penalties in the Bill are considerably increased.

The improvement of the various quotas as well as management of the resources is based on extensive research conducted by dedicated marine scientists. All new developments undertaken by the department are backed by thorough research. It is only departmental scientists who conduct the research. Non-departmental researchers conduct projects on a contract basis as well. South African scientists have made great advances and are now able to enter the predictive stage of their work with increasing confidence. It is therefore gladdening to note that the Sea Fishery Fund will not only continue to exist but that it will in future be possible to utilise the fund for a wider spectrum of activities.

Mr Chairman, the Sea Fishery Bill before this House was debated in the standing committee on a number of occasions and the reason for this was that it was a piece of legislation which was very necessary in the South African context. In keeping with the recommendations of the Diemont Commission, which was appointed to look into this whole aspect, the standing committee, with the assistance of the department, made a few amendments and I believe that the end result is a very good piece of legislation.

One of the issues which the standing committee, and particularly the House of Delegates contingent, made very clear, was that it was not satisfied particularly with the application of certain provisions of the Act when it came to the fishing industry, especially in Natal. We were advised— and I shall make further reference to this later— that this particular aspect would be investigated, and I refer to the problems facing the Indian fishermen along the Natal North Coast.

This legislation does not make any reference to precluding people from being involved in fishing, but other Acts, such as the Sea-shore Act, does impose certain provisions and restrictions. Certain local authorities take advantage in terms of the Act of their power to preclude fishing in particular areas.

The White Paper on marine resources which was tabled in Parliament, shows that the marine resources of the Republic contribute substantially to the well-being of the South African community. As well as providing recreation for thousands of anglers, it plays an important role in the economy. Fisheries create employment opportunities, generate foreign exchange and provide a highly regarded source of protein. Estimates of the value of commercial earnings during 1985 amounted to some R550 million and the industry employs more than 25 000 people. Therefore the White Paper that was tabled in Parliament, and this new Bill, safeguard against the exploitation of fishing resources along the South African coast, as mentioned by the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs. South Africa has a long coast-line, over 3 000 kilometers and it is necessary to restrict certain fishing.

In order to effectively protect and exploit the limited marine resources of the Republic, it was necessary to introduce certain safeguards. I think everyone in this House will agree that there is need for this. I want to underscore that in arriving at such a measure, emphasis had to be placed on the question of quotas. Under the present legislation regarding the application of quotas, the responsible Minister is constantly under pressure from the quota holders and others interested in marine resources. Therefore a quota board will be constituted in terms of the Bill. Our objection was that a quota board cannot allocate quotas and at the same time be an appeal mechanism. We are very glad that after our objections at the standing committee, it was agreed that in future a retired judge or some other retired person from the judiciary, will be chairman of the quota board. I am particularly glad, because after failing at the first sitting we were able to convince the official at the second sitting that there was a need for this. This proves that consensus works and that a good Bill can have good measures. I think the hon the Minister must be happy that we were able to convince the department that such a change was necessary. I think the officials need to be complimented that they compromised on this particular aspect.

We place great emphasis on the fact that the bigger industries are having a large share of the quota slices in South Africa. We are glad that reference was made at the standing committee to the fact that employers in industry would not be new entrants and as such would be entitled to first options should there be an increase in the total allowable cash (TAC) of any resources. I am confident that the officials will ensure that the bigger industries will not get additional quotas. However, if there are any more increases in the total allowable cash, it must go to the small man for whom we are fighting in Parliament. I think it is encouraging that, from what I heard, no more additional allocations will be made to the larger fishing industry. The Government also agrees that greater benefits should be given to the fishing communities and that participation should be more broadly based. This was an encouraging aspect of the Diemont Committee’s report.

The other aspect was that an official register will be kept of all allocations and transfers so that it is public. We believe it should be in the open so that we can see what happens. In the past there has been suspicion as to what exactly was happening in the fishing industry. I believe this Bill brings a whole new dimension to the fishing industry itself and I am quite sure that the very capable Minister and his department will solve any problem.

There are a few things that we are unhappy about. The Bill specifies that the legislation will not apply in Natal. I will not argue this point now because a committee has been formed to look at legislation that discriminates against Natal. We have been advised that our objection to restrictions along the northern coast will be answered when the legislation on seashores comes before the House. Amendments will then be made. The matter must be resolved and we cannot allow certain restrictions to apply to Natal, particularly to Durban and Richard’s Bay, in terms of the extended ordinances. People have to make a living from their fishing. I think the hon the Minister will be the first to agree that a man has to live. The problems caused by the restrictions of local authorities along the Natal coast will have to be solved.

I want to come to another matter which is in a much lighter vein and which was mentioned by the hon the Deputy Minister. I want to quote from the Diemont report on the allocation of quotas for the exploitation of living marine resources. It is important for my argument and I want to quote from paragraph 1.5 on page 1:

We have come a long way since that particular case in 1921. There have been many commercial issues and many committees have sat in South America and elsewhere. Today exploitation must be avoided and fishing must be regulated. Sources have to be safeguarded against exploitation and there must be a fair distribution of resources in the future. Limitations will have to be set but I do not agree with the fact that the legislation on marine resources benefits the local authorities while prohibiting the small man from fishing in certain places. I would also like an undertaking from the hon the Minister that the small man will be represented when the Fishing Advisory Council is reconstituted to a Marine Advisory Council. The interests of the small man must be represented there and I hope this will be taken care of in the future.

In so far as the Marine Advisory Committee is concerned, under the present dispensation the Minister is required in terms of the commission’s report to make regulations in respect of the quantities of fish that may be caught and processed after consulting the Sea Fishery Advisory Committee. It was established by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1973 (Act No 58 of 1973) and it consists of 21 members. I hope the hon the Minister will involve the small man in this.

In support of this measure I want to conclude by appealing to the hon the Minister that this piece of legislation—the hon the Minister said it is colour-blind—must not only protect the large industries and the people who are already established but it should also bring in the small man. I hope the hon the Minister’s officials have already advised him that this point was made in the standing committee and that we then received the assurance that the small man would be looked after.

So in the end this Bill, which is a good Bill, arranges the replacement of the Fishery Advisory Council by a committee which I believe answers part of our question. It also deals with the regulation of quotas for the fishing industry and the granting and termination of rights of exploitation.

Of course it broadens the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Fund. It may now be utilised for the development of marine resources which is a very good measure and we welcome it. It also provides for the conservation and setting aside of areas as marine reserves. This also now includes Prince Edward Island and we on this side of the House welcome and support this Bill and thank the hon the Minister for allowing us to make our views known on those measures which prohibit certain types of fishing along the Natal coast and therefore we have agreed not to raise the matter here as the hon the Minister and his department have given the undertaking that this will be answered in another Bill which will come before Parliament.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the chairman of our component on this standing committee, the hon member for Newholme who is unavoidably absent, I wish to add our support for this measure.

If one looks at this measure it is a bulky measure and I must congratulate its drafters. A great deal of work must have gone into the drafting of this measure and one could truly say that this is the bible of the fishing industries in this country. It could actually be called the bible. The entire industry is being regulated by this measure before us.

I just want to make one or two minor observations. I understand that the territorial waters, or one could say the fishing zones, along the coastline in this country comprises approximately 1 million square kilometres. I understand that it is approximately two thirds of the total surface area of the RSA. This is a colossal piece of sea, a colossal territory and therefore needs a great deal of control. One must congratulate the department on what it has been doing.

If one looks at Schedule II of the Bill one will notice all the breeding-grounds as places that are being protected by this Bill. They are all listed there. There are so many islands that I cannot even read them all, but they all seem to be situated in very interesting places. If hon members had the opportunity of visiting these places they would notice that they are all along the West coast. Very few of them are along the East coast of this country. There is practically nothing along the Natal coast. All we have along the Natal South coast are a whole of “verkramptes” who do not allow our people to fish there.

People of colour are not allowed to fish along the Natal South coast. In fact whenever the sardine run takes place along that coast one finds that selfish White people go to the beach and take most of the sardines—most of the beaches are reserved for them—and the leftovers are then picked up by our people further downstream.

This brings me to what I want to tell the hon the Minister and that is that we are pleased that there is going to be some form of control. I think it is necessary. If our marine resources are exploited without any reasonable controls then of course we are going to be at the losing end in years to come. Hon members know about the fiasco of the pilchard industry along the West coast.

The pilchard industry collapsed a couple of years ago. I think a couple of years ago means a couple of decades ago. It took time before it could be ensured that there were sufficient pilchards in the sea.

There are not many people of colour involved in the fishing industry, exploiting these territorial waters and the marine resources. Particularly here in the Cape, we have Coloured people, some of whom own small boats and trawlers, and I believe that opportunities should be created for these people who are involved in this industry, the people who live with the sea, people that have been involved in the fishing industry for years.

*I would like to say to the hon the Minister that if we want people of colour to be more involved in the industry, we must ensure that the quota board is more representative of the various interest groups. I hope people of colour will serve on the council as well. Those of us who come from the dry part of the country only have the Hartebeespoort Dam and a few trout dams etc nearby. That is all we know about fish. When we talk about fish we always think of I & J. That is all we know about the fishing industry. We buy I & J fish.

Have I heard that somebody is going to be charged in court?

†This person was charged with having in his possession certain crayfish. It was said that the crayfish were in berry. I had to telephone someone who knows something about this industry to ask him what is meant when a fish is in berry. He said the term was not used for fish but for crayfish; it is normally crayfish that are in berry. That means the crayfish is pregnant and of course the law states that these crayfish may not be caught.

I want to say that a great deal of good work is being done by the department. I hope they carry on with this good work but that there will be access to these massive fishing grounds which are equal in size to two thirds of the total surface area of the RSA. I would say that that is enough for everyone. I hope the small man will be encouraged and I hope that those institutions in the country that are trying to encourage small business, will help these people to buy small boats and to go out to sea, and that we will see more smaller people becoming involved in this industry. I also hope that we from the dry lands will not only be talking about I & J but about “ons almal”.

Mr Chairman, I too welcome this Bill, particularly in view of the fact that any marine resources and any sustenance obtained from such resources is delicious. In addition, this being so, I realise that the economy of any country is dependent on export products as well.

These marine resources are exported in abundance to oversea countries, and what I am concerned about is the extent to which these resources are made available to the community in South Africa. I refer in particular to the crayfish that the hon member Mr Abram mentioned. Crayfish is such a rare commodity in South Africa and yet it is very readily obtainable overseas. Large quantities and the best quality are to be found overseas. But we are unable to obtain sufficient here. If we do get them, but what price do we pay?

As far as I am concerned, charity begins at home. [Interjections.]

This is what I am really concerned about. Why should one have to travel some thousands of kilometres overseas in order to eat that delicacy? I should like the hon the Minister and his department to look into this matter very carefully and if possible, increase the quota for consumption by our South African community.

Secondly, we do have law enforcement officers who go around to make sure that nothing in excess, as regards size and quantity, is caught off our coasts. What I am concerned about, however, is what happens to that quantity which is confiscated by the law enforcement officers. Where does that go to?

I suppose they eat it themselves.

This is another matter that worries me, because of the fishermen I am told that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is constantly in contact with the people who make their living from the sea. [Interjections.] He has been a member of the football club, so he knows better! However, they are constantly complaining.

May I ask the hon member whether he is aware that my association is not through football; but that my great grandfather was the first Indian net fisherman in this country? “Rajbansi” means “king fish”. We have all the kings in the net! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that may be so, but I am referring to his association with fishermen. He, too, is aware of this.

What is happening about this? We have constant complaints about fish being confiscated, but where it goes thereafter is unknown.

You are accusing the fishermen of corruption.

Not the fishermen; the law enforcement officers. [Interjections.] All I am concerned about is how this is being dealt with by the law enforcement officers.

Finally, I should like to raise the matter of the various boards and control boards provided for in this Bill. I only hope that the appointment of this personnel to these boards will be done with circumspect and that they are people who will control the situation and conduct themselves in a manner acceptable to the community.

Mr Chairman, I have been listening to a number of very responsible speeches on this very interesting topic. The Bill that we have before us aims at conservation of our marine ecology.

The marine industry is an important industry that makes an enormous contribution to the economy of the Republic. It provides, as the hon member for Redhill said, an essential part of our total food supply; it provides employment; it provides foreign currency. This resource must be properly managed, and that is why we have this Bill before us today.

We must manage it in such a way that not only our generation, but the next one may also benefit from this resource. In order to achieve this we need to pass this Bill with all its regulatory measures. It is largely based on the existing Sea Fisheries Act with quite a number of additional provisions. The hon the Deputy Minister who spoke on this Bill made a very fine speech. He touched on the important aspects of it, the main thrust being that we must not only preserve, but also utilise in such a way that we do not exhaust the resources. He referred to research as being very necessary and I agree with him. It is impossible for the department or me to make recommendations and apply proper rules and regulations if there is no research to back us up. The researchers have to tell us the extent of the availability of resources in order to base the total allowable catch on this information. A number of aspects are dealt with by research and we cannot do without it. I thank the hon the Deputy Minister for his contribution.

The hon member for Red Hill also mentioned the problems facing the Indian fishermen in Natal. He referred to the Sea Shore Act and I agree with him. This matter will be discussed in great detail when we get to the amendment bill concerned. It is a fact that more than 25 000 people in this country make a living from the sea fishing industry. This industry has a yearly turnover of approximately R500 million, which is a very substantial figure in our total economy. There are certain safeguards and I agree with the hon member that the Quota Board is a very important addition to the old Bill. In the past the Minister had to decide who was to get the quota and what its size should be. This used to put the Minister under a lot of pressure and it was sometimes very difficult to make decisions. With this new Quota Board in operation, the pressure now will be off the Minister concerned and I am very thankful for that, I can tell hon members. As was correctly mentioned, the Chairman will be either a retired Judge or a retired Magistrate, if my colleague the hon the Minister of Justice sitting behind me can spare them. I hope that will be the case.

The bigger industries of course have large amounts of capital invested in the Fishing Industry and these are short- and long-term investments. Naturally they should be put in a position to carry on their operations. These bigger industries also employ many people and I am under the impression that they pay their people well. As a matter of interest I have listed the earnings of a crew of a pelagic fishing boat in 1987. Hon members will be interested to know that on the boat which performed best the skipper earned a salary, without his bonus, of R152 000 plus. [Interjections.] The ordinary deckhand on that boat earned R55 000. The average skipper of a pelagic boat last year earned between R110 000 and R112 000. The average deck hand earned as much as R41 000. On the boat which performed the weakest of all, a crew member had an income of more than R12 000 per year. If one compares this to the income in the civil service …

Or that of Ministers.

—or even that of Ministers or Members of Parliament, I think that the fisherman’s wages compare very favourably.

I must say, therefore, that the larger companies look after their workers well.

Another important point is that the larger companies make a tremendous contribution towards our funds for research. This year we have increased the levies on the industries and they are paying them, although perhaps begrudgingly. We need that money for extra research into our fishing industry.

And for the crayfish braai as well, Sir.

We shall come to the crayfish. [Interjections.]

†As far as new entries into the industry are concerned, those will, of course, be determined by the total available cash. If one looks at the American fishing industry, for instance, one finds that the reason why that industry collapsed completely was because of too many entrants into that industry. It is a very capital intensive business nowadays if one wants to enter the pelagic industry or even deep sea trawling. Millions of rands are tied up in boats and so forth, and if there are too many entrants, they simply cannot make a proper living. It is not possible. We therefore have to be very careful.

What about Mozambique?

Mozambique unfortunately does not have very rich fish resources.

Prawns.

Well, they have a little prawn industry but it is not big enough.

They are all red now. [Interjections.]

It cannot be compared to the South African industry.

I want to tell hon members that I have a very special affinity with the small man in the fishing industry. I have said before in this House that I was born on the West Coast, where the fishing industry was in the hands of the small operator, and I have a very special affinity with the small fisherman.

Now, with the Small Business Development Corporation taking over the assets of the FDC, that body has now been phased out. According to my information, a substantial number of loans have been made to small fishermen by the Small Business Development Corporation. Perhaps I shall give hon members more information in that regard when we deal with my Vote. The whole idea, however, is to look after the small entrepreneur.

The hon member Mr Abram supports the Bill. He says it will be the bible of the industry. I sincerely hope that it will, and that it will be accepted as such.

As far as our coastal waters are concerned, this is a vast mass of water to control. It is a difficult task. We have to keep an eye not only on our own boats but also on foreign boats catching fish in our waters.

*He asks that the Quota Board should represent people of colour. I can only say that the interim Qouta Board, which is as present doing the work until the actual Quota Board takes over, already has people of colour in its ranks.

Thank you, Sir.

Turning to the matter of crayfish, both the hon member for Bayview and the hon member Mr Abram referred to the availability of crayfish for the local market. I can tell hon members that I have made a substantial tonnage of crayfish available for the local market. Actually last year the total tonnage made available for the local market was not taken up by the local market.

Price.

Yes, perhaps it is a matter of price. However, we must take into consideration that crayfish is a luxury food.

I do not eat crayfish every day. I do not even eat it every week or every month. It is a luxury food and we must see it as such. However, this year we have made a substantial tonnage of crayfish available for the local market which may not be exported. There is a restriction on that. If I am not mistaken, it is in the vicinity of 900 tons of crayfish, which, I can assure hon members, is quite a lot. I am not sure whether the local hotel industry and restaurants will take up the total amount. I do not think so. We have seen to it that crayfish is available on the local market.

What about the price? We could of course fix the price, as we can with any other product. However, I do not think it is the right thing to do. If one fixes the price of crayfish, one must fix the price of all other commodities as well. Why must we fix the price of a luxury commodity? I have told the hotel industry that they buy their crayfish from the national marketing organisation, Safloc, which will provide it at a reasonable price, and that it is then up to them to determine what price they can charge for their crayfish without getting consumer resistance. I asked them what mark-up they take on crayfish and they reluctantly answered that it is about 100%. However, I read in the paper that the mark-up in some restaurants is up to 300%. If the public will pay those prices, they will of course charge them. It is for the public to refuse to buy crayfish at that price. Then the price will come down and the problem will be sorted out. I think our public must object when they are charged exorbitant prices for crayfish. They must just say: “No, we will not have it.” Then the restaurant prices will come down. The point is that people are willing to pay R30, R32 and R35 for a crayfish. I have seen it myself so many times in restaurants. People do not even query the price. They want crayfish and whether it costs R30 or R35, they just pay it.

Those are only the Hoggen-heimers; not us.

The hon member will be surprised who eats crayfish in restaurants.

An important matter was raised, namely what happens to confiscated fish, especially crayfish. I have imposed very strict rules in this regard. Firstly, there is a definite instruction that the crayfish must not be burnt or destroyed in any way. It must be utilised for human consumption. The problem is that if it concerns undermeasure crayfish, one cannot provide it to ordinary restaurants, because then one gets legal and illegal crayfish mixed up. If the crayfish is not up to standard, it is specially processed by one of the processors and put onto the market. I sometimes use it for charitable institutions, where possible. When the crayfish is of legal size and the quality is fine, we sell it to the marketing organisation, Safloc, and the funds go to the coffers of the State. There is therefore very strict control on confiscated crayfish.

I want to thank all hon members who supported the Bill, from both sides of the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, insofar as recommendation 1 is concerned, it would seem from the Minutes that this is a very important issue. It is of course important when land that has been included in a national park is excised for some or other reason. Although this land—it is the remainder of the farm Sigambule—became part of the Kruger National Park was never really utilised for the purposes for which the park was established. There has in fact been human settlement on this land. Hon members will notice that it is also referred to as the Nsikazi Reserve. In the light of the information put to the standing committee we saw fit to make this recommendation and we support it.

Mr Chairman, in supporting this measure I wish to reiterate what my hon colleague Mr S Abram said. It became clear in the standing committee that if we allow our natural resources to be handled in this fashion in future we will be eating into the natural resources of South Africa. This was perhaps an isolated case for the moment but it could happen again in future. We have already today looked at the Sea Fishery Bill which concerns another natural resource.

If we start to erode our natural resources—in this case it is the area of the Kruger National Park— it would mean a loss for future generations. The hon the Minister should take into account that we in the standing committee were most concerned over this issue and we took great interest in it. I can say to hon members that we only passed two requests—the other four were returned to obtain further information. We are paying great attention to the natural resources of South Africa and we are questioning every development.

As my hon colleague said, we took into account that people had already settled in this area. We therefore felt that the request of the hon the Minister was an effort to rectify a situation that already existed. However, the department must take greater cognisance in future of the fact that our resources should not be tampered with and that this type of situation should not arise. We on this side of the House support the first recommendation.

Recommendation agreed to.

Recommendation 2:

Mr Chairman, insofar as this recommendation is concerned the area of the Groendal State Forest in the Uitenhage district was set aside as a wilderness area in terms of the Forest Act, 1968. What is happening here is that the Department of Water Affairs is merely seeking the right to use an existing road through this wilderness area.

As hon members are aware, wilderness areas are “no go” areas for motor vehicles. What we have here is an existing road that has been used over the years. What the Department of Water Affairs seeks is merely to regularise the situation.

I want to endorse what the hon member for Redhill said, namely that the standing committee examines matters like this with hawk’s eyes.

We are guarding these national assets which belong to the nation and I can assure you, Mr Chairman, in this particular instance again, we were absolutely satisfied that there is a necessity for this road to be utilized and to be used by the Department of Water Affairs also for another important issue—you will note that it is a State department dealing with water. In order to regularise this issue we support this recommendation.

Recommendation agreed to.

House Resumed:

Recommendations reported.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House also support the measure and the views expressed. I also wish to concur although this is one State department asking another it is for the interest alone which I mentioned earlier that we wish to safeguard the interest of this country and to ensure that things are done correctly. We have no objection to this particular request for temporary rights in favour of the Department of Water Affairs.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the Gambling Bill before us amends the Gambling Act of 1965.

This Bill increases the penalties from R200 to R1 000 and from R1 000 to R2 000. The previous fines were introduced 23 years ago.

The reasons for this Bill is twofold. Firstly the devaluation of the rand since 1965 when the Gambling Act was promulgated necessitated an adjustment. Secondly, gambling contraventions are increasing and I believe that the Magistrates Association requested that fines be increased to keep in line with those for other similar offences.

We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, as a member of the Islamic faith you will appreciate that I have absolutely no objections to this Bill being passed.

I have seen the hon the Minister waiting patiently for us to discuss this Bill and because of the lateness of the hour I shall not detain this House any longer except to say that as I understand it, the motivation for the Bill is not really the devaluation of the rand, but rather because of inflationary factors which have resulted in the present value of the rand.

What concerns me here is a comment that was made by the hon the Minister in his Second Reading speech. He pointed a friendly finger, if I may use that expression, at the small operators of pools and that kind of lottery. The question that therefore arises when one discusses gambling is should we not practice a single standard? What I am saying is why do we enforce legislation like this against the small gambler when we in fact should really be looking at gambling generally.

I am referring in particular to horse racing. I know of course that that is an emotive issue and that there are lots of vested interests, but surely nobody can argue with me that placing a bet at the totaliser requires any great deal of skill.

It is pure chance. It requires a degree of skill on the part of the jockey, the trainer and of course the manipulator of both the jockey and the trainer. With those words we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon member for Springfield speaking from an Islamic point of view in support of the Bill. In my opinion it is totally immoral. I believe that gambling has in fact contributed to the break up and demoralisation of many homes.

We on this side of the House fully support the Bill. I am only sorry that the fines have not been increased threefold or fivefold in order to put a complete stop to this gambling.

I share the opinion that in actual fact the legislation being introduced to curb gambling should be far more stringent so that gamblers would think twice before starting.

We on this side of the House fully support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, with reference to my hon colleague who put his case so very ably a little while ago, I want to say that I do not wish to display a similar knowledge and enthusiasm for the topic we now have to discuss after some of the speeches I have listened to which had a very, very distinct and clear message of censure regarding anyone displaying any knowledge of gambling. I therefore assure the House that this topic is not unknown to me. I have had the good fortune to defend some gentlemen years ago when I was still practising, for their practices of fafi, and with some success. I do not know whether the hon member for Springfield has fafi in mind when he talks about the small-time gambler. I do not know whether he perhaps even has someone in mind who has been gambling with matches.

What is fafi?

I have been asked by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council what fafi is. It is a very profitable pastime and I am prepared to brief him on this issue for the proper fee.

The fact is that we do not intend to move against any particular organisation. We are very clear in our Second Reading speech that this measure is not directed at the small-time gambler or any particular practice. However, we did sound a warning and I would like to quote to the hon member what we actually said.

Mr Speaker …

I said in the other House—

That is what I actually said and perhaps it is appropriate for me to repeat the warning in case some of the hon members are called upon to advise institutions within their constituencies about competitions. Nevertheless, it is definitely not aimed at these institutions but we are merely sounding a warning that it should please be made more difficult, and the essence of skill should be built into the competitions, thereby ensuring that the Act does not become applicable to them. That is what I actually said.

As to the other issue which the hon member only mentioned in passing, I do believe that he was only playing the role of the devil’s advocate because he would know himself that the art of horseracing definitely has been protected by law for many years in many countries. As a matter of fact it has become one of the larger industries— almost like the fishing industry, I dare say. It provides work for thousands upon thousands of people who have jobs on a day-to-day contract, which is legal. Everything about this industry is legal until one comes to the betting issue, which is only the tip of the iceberg. I am not in a position to argue with the hon the Chairman of this Honourable House about the moral issue of this tip of the iceberg. I hope he will allow me to sidestep that issue.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

1. (l) that the judgment is a judgment or order which in terms of any law may not be recognized or enforced in the Republic.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.