Mr Speaker, I move:

For the SATS the 1987-88 financial year was characterised by various traumatic events, a stringent economic climate and essential change. Events such as the autumn strikes, the Natal floods and later the Helderberg air disaster came as a great shock to Transport Services and for that matter to the whole of South Africa. But this has also taught us a great deal. Transport Services is prepared to use these lessons as building blocks for a brighter future. This year can also be seen as a significant milestone in the history of Transport Services in adapting to and fitting in with changing circumstances. Against this background I now give hon members a review of the activities of the South African Transport Services during the 1987-88 financial year and submit to Parliament the Transport Services Appropriation Bill, 1988.

ECONOMIC REVIEW 1987-88

The economic upswing which started in 1986 continued during 1987-88. The 1987-88 Budget was based on a growth rate of 3%. Various factors on the local and international scene placed a damper on the upswing. Of particular significance are the continued sanctions and disinvestment activities, labour unrest and the slump on stock exchanges worldwide, while the economies of South Africa’s major trading partners began to level off. Furthermore, the high rate of inflation and the strengthening of the rand detrimentally affected South Africa’s exports and, therefore, the economic growth in the export sector.

The impetus for growth was to a large extent derived from the increase of about 3% in the real gross domestic spending and a steady performance of the balance of payments.

REVIEW OF ACTIVITIES DURING 1987-88

Railways

Torrential rains started falling in Natal on 23 September 1987 and continued unabated for nearly 14 days, causing damage amounting to approximately R26 million to the rail network and pipelines.

Almost all the rail links in the Natal region were affected and for the first time within living memory train movements in the Durban area virtually came to a standstill for a period of two days. Altogether 6 880 employees were involved in the mopping-up operations. Except for the Gingindlovu—Eshowe section, which will be closed for an indefinite period, all rail links were back in operation on 30 October 1987. Numerous messages and letters of appreciation and commendation for the efficient and prompt manner in which Transport Services handled the disruption caused by the floods were received from various bodies, and for this I am truly grateful.

The heavy downpours in parts of the Free State, Transvaal and the Cape resulted in devastating floods accompanied by great damage and heavy losses. The magnitude of the damage has not yet been determined and the SATS is doing everything in its power to normalise its services as soon as practicable.

I now wish to refer briefly to some of the traffic tendencies and activities of the specific services. Except where otherwise stated, the percentage change in respect of the period April to December 1987 is compared with the same period the previous year.

Passenger Services

The declining tendency of the previous year in intercity and commuter passenger journeys continued. Intercity passenger journeys were 36% less and in order to bring the supply of seats closer to demand, intercity passenger trains were reduced by 42%.

Commuter passenger journeys declined by only 1%. This was mainly due to a drop of 18% in first-class commuter passengers.

As a result of an intensive marketing campaign aimed especially at the domestic market, as well as the curtailment of the number of journeys, the average occupancy of the Blue Train improved from 46% to 90%. This gave rise to the cost coverage of the Blue Train increasing from 48% to 70%.

The biggest single problem the SATS has to cope with remains the losses on rail passenger services. The loss on these services is estimated at R1 200 million for the 1987-88 financial year. The compensation which is being received from the State amounts to only R632 million, which implies that the SATS is compelled to offset the remaining R568 million by means of cross-subsidisation.

Goods—rail

The total tonnage of revenue-earning traffic reflects a decrease of 4,7%. The Intac accounting system which, inter alia, makes automatic tariffing possible, was implemented during the year.

This on-line system, which will ultimately make 120 goods points available for document capturing, enquiries, tariff quotations, etc will to a large extent contribute towards a better and more efficient service to clients and in addition will bring about a saving of R9 million per annum.

Airways

On 28 November 1987 a total of 140 passengers and 19 crew members lost their lives when the Helderberg, one of the SA Airways’ Boeing 747 Combis, plunged into the sea en route from Taiwan to Mauritius. The SATS, and for that matter the whole of South Africa, joined relatives of the deceased in mourning, and offers of assistance poured in from abroad. Once again I wish to convey the gratitude of the Government and the Management of the SATS to all the countries and organisations which rendered and offered assistance.

I also wish to express my personal appreciation to all those involved, and in particular the Department of Foreign Affairs, the SA Defence Force and the Department of Transport.

Once again we would like to express our deepest sympathy with all the relatives.

At the same time I wish to assure the travelling public that the SA Airways has a safety record to be proud of and that the airline will continue to build upon this record. It is a safety record accomplished by flight personnel of outstanding calibre and technical maintenance programmes which at all times comply with international standards.

It is satisfying to note that a steady growth occurred on the international routes of the SA Airways while between April and December 1987 there was a 15,5% increase in the number of passengers on the domestic routes.

For the second consecutive year the SA Airways succeeded in not increasing air fares in respect of domestic flights.

Road Transport

SA Road Transport continued to increase its productivity.

On the passenger side Road Transport’s revenueearning kilometres per vehicle increased by 8,5% and the passenger journeys per vehicle by 1%.

In so far as goods are concerned, the tonnage per vehicle increased by 16,8% and the revenueearning kilometres per vehicle by 15,5%.

This increase in productivity resulted in the revenue at the end of December 1987 having improved by 2,8% as against the Budget.

†Harbours

The tonnage cargo handled at South African harbours was 4% lower than the previous year.

Although imports increased by nearly 11%, exports, which consist mainly of bulk cargo, decreased by more than 6%.

The historical and characteristic architecture in the older parts of Table Bay Harbour has always been a big tourist attraction. However, until recently, it formed an integral part of the commercial harbour to which the public could not readily be given access.

As a result of containerisation the regular commercial activities assumed a different pattern and occupancy.

The Burggraaf Committee was appointed to investigate the possibility of using certain parts of Table Bay Harbour for tourism and recreational purposes. The committee completed its report during the course of the year and made certain recommendations regarding the development of areas within Table Bay Harbour.

The report was made available to the various interested parties for comments. The reaction received was positive. I am at present studying the report and the comments.

Pipelines

During the floods in Natal, damage amounting to several million rands was caused to the crude oil pipeline, and the operation from Durban had to be suspended for almost three weeks.

A new pipeline tariff structure, which is divorced from rail rates, was implemented during the year. There is not much of a difference between the rail and pipeline tariffs at present, but the gap will gradually be widened on account of pipeline tariffs being brought closer to cost. The operating costs of the pipeline are lower than those of the rail. This will ensure better utilisation of the pipeline.

This strategy fits in with the SATS’s policy that each mode of transport should concentrate on the type of traffic in respect of which it enjoys a competitive advantage.

FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR 1987-88

It is expected that the SATS’s revenue, as reflected in the revised estimates, will increase by approximately 1% to R10 363 million as compared with the original estimates.

This is attributable mainly to the insurance compensation received in respect of the Helderberg and an increase in air passenger revenue. This increase was partially offset by a decrease in especially rail goods revenue.

It is anticipated that the revised estimates of working expenditure will reflect an increase of R202 million as against the original estimates. This is largely due to an appropriation of R138 million to the Revenue Reserve Account via the Appropriation Account. This amount represents the difference between the insurance compensation and the outstanding book value of the Helderberg aircraft.

Furthermore, there was an increase in financing costs, mainly as a result of an additional provision for exchange losses amounting to R125 million. This brings the total provision for exchange losses for the year to R575 million.

Provision is being made in the revised financial results for a deficit of R126 million as against a deficit of R40 million originally budgeted for.

PROSPECTS FOR 1988-89

At the outset I indicated that this budget must also be seen as a significant milestone in the history of the SATS. The most important landmark on this road to change was erected by the hon the State President in his opening address of this session of Parliament.

The hon the State President announced that the Government had decided in principle to submit to Parliament the necessary legislative amendments which would transform, inter alia, the SATS as a whole, or after being divided into suitable business enterprises, into an undertaking or undertakings with the object of making profits and paying taxes.

This announcement is in line with the recommendations by Dr Wim de Villiers regarding the strategic planning, management practices and systems of the SATS. The De Villiers Inquiry should be viewed against the background of the National Transport Policy Study which has already been accepted by the Government.

NATIONAL TRANSPORT POLICY STUDY

The basic approach of the National Transport Policy Study was that by deregulating the transport market, conditions were being created for freer competition which in turn could lead to the optimum utilisation of production factors. To ensure the effective utilisation of production factors to the overall benefit of the national economy, it is essential that fair and equal competition should exist between the modes of transport.

For the SATS it holds out the prospect that reciprocal concessions between the SATS and the State must be abolished; the road mode must bear its fair share of the costs for the provision and maintenance of infrastructure; the policy of cross-subsidisation within the SATS must be terminated as far as possible; the SATS commitment to a system of fixed tariffs and the statutory requirement that its tariffs should be published must be revoked; and the common carrier principle in terms of which all traffic offered for conveyance should be accepted, to which the SATS unlike the private carrier, is bound, must be abolished.

In a deregulated market, equal competition will lead to every mode of transport concentrating on those types of traffic in respect of which it has a net competitive advantage.

DE VILLIERS INQUIRY

For the purpose of this budget the recommendations of the De Villiers Inquiry can be divided into three categories, namely those of business strategy, organisational framework and control structure.

Business Strategy

Dr Wim de Villiers found that in a deregulated transport market and provided the aforementioned conditions were met, the SATS, with the exception of the rail commuter service, would by applying sound business principles be operated as a profitable economic unit.

Such a profitable unit may bring about lower tariff increases than those of the present dispensation.

Dr De Villiers has, therefore, recommended that the SATS should concentrate on those areas where it enjoys a competitive advantage and that profit and return on capital should serve as the norm for business decisions. Since these recommendations amount to a sound business approach and since the SA Transport Services Act prescribes that the organisation should be operated on business principles, the broad spectrum of recommendations which fall within this category have as far as possible been put into practice. Meaningful results have already been achieved with this business approach.

Organisational Framework

Dr De Villiers indicated in his study that to be able to apply the aforementioned norms of profit and return on capital in an organisation such as the SATS requires that the organisation be established on the basis of primary and secondary business enterprises. In view of this it was recommended that the SATS be divided into six primary business enterprises, namely:

• — airways
• — harbours
• — road transport
• — pipelines and
• — rail commuter passenger services

These business enterprises represent the SATS’ five modes of transport which can be operated economically, and the rail commuter passenger services which the SATS will operate, on an agency basis, for the State and/or regional services councils.

In addition to these primary business enterprises it was recommended that secondary business units be established. I also approved in this instance that the restructuring of the SATS be continued with. As hon members are probably aware, the SATS has already been restructured into a Group Management Structure comprising five business enterprises, namely rail, air, harbours, road and pipelines. Each of these enterprises functions fairly autonomously under the control of a member of the Management Board.

Apart from the five business enterprises rail commuter services are operated financially as a separate business undertaking. Hon members will note that the budget to be tabled was compiled on this basis.

In addition to these business enterprises the SATS is being restructured into quite a number of secondary business units. These business units will as far as practicable also be managed autonomously. The most important of these business units, which are in the process of being restructured, are the following:

• — Catering
• — Travel Bureau
• — Transmed
• — Workshops
• — Telecommunication services
• — Data processing services

In so far as commuter passenger services are concerned, my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance and I are at present considering the financial implications.

Control Structure

Finality has not as yet been reached in respect of the control structure for the SATS as recommended by Dr De Villiers. As a result of developments since the completion of Dr De Villiers’s report and in view of the hon the State President’s announcement concerning privatisation in his Opening Speech, the recommendations in connection with a control structure would probably have to be amended. As soon as this has been finalised and all the financial implications of the report have been cleared up, the condensed report of Dr Wim de Villiers will be tabled.

*PRIVATISATION

The hon the State President, in naming specific Government enterprises as possible candidates for privatisation in his opening address, gave the process of privatisation a tremendous boost. After the restructuring of the SATS the various enterprises will be subjected to the criteria laid down in the White Paper on Privatisation with a view to determining whether privatisation is achievable and if so, in which form.

However, it is already clear that certain units will be easier candidates for privatisation than others. I have already indicated in the past that the Translux and Transcity services of SA Road Transport must be privatised. It now appears that the obvious step would be to expand this concept to include all bus passenger services of SA Road Transport. For the operation of these services 864 buses at a capital investment of approximately R100 million are in service. The annual revenue derived from these services amounts to approximately R100 million. I have issued instructions that these services be developed as a separate business enterprise with a view to privatisation.

Mr Speaker, according to public opinion, the SA Airways is undoubtedly the most acceptable candidate for privatisation. On the one hand, the airline, as an undertaking, has established a successful record and built up a tradition of its own. On the other hand, however, there are the aspects of the degree to which its operations are interwoven with those of the SATS, State involvement, and competition in the domestic market which would have to be addressed first. I am at present giving attention to achieving a measure of competition in the domestic air transport market.

The capital investment in the SA Airways amounted to approximately R1 300 million as at 31 March 1987, while the revenue for the 1986-87 financial year was in excess of R1 600 million. The most important and most crucial phase of privatisation now lies ahead, namely the creation of circumstances in which privatisation can take place and the planning and preparation of an undertaking and its employees. Whilst the process of privatisation is therefore being proceeded with purposefully, it is not possible to attach a time-scale to the process at this stage. The responsibility rests upon us not only to be successful with privatisation in general but to handle it in such a manner that no employee will lose his job and that the employees will in fact be the winners.

WIEHAHN REPORT

Another example of essential change in order to adapt to circumstances is the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Bill, 1988, which was considered by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications at the beginning of this month. The report of the Wiehahn Commission of Inquiry into the Establishment of a Negotiating Body for the S A Transport Services in connection with Salaries and Service Conditions forms the basis of the Bill. The Bill provides a new labour dispensation for the SATS by the establishment of a Labour Council on which collective bargaining can take place, as well as dispute-settlement procedures within and outside the Labour Council. By means of this it is intended to create a model whereby labour structures within the SATS as part of the State, can as far as possible be brought into line with the machinery applicable in the private sector.

In so far as conditions of employment are concerned, we are at the same time moving from a more statutory approach to a more contractual approach whereby the conditions of employment of employees are embodied in the so-called Consolidated Service Conditions, which can be amended by the Labour Council.

I am convinced that the possibility of conciliation and arbitration, together with the dispute-settlement mechanisms of the Labour Council, would form a system which would make it possible to deal with labour relations in a meaningful way in the SATS.

ECONOMIC PROSPECTS

It is expected that the present upswing in the South African business cycle will retain its impetus during 1988-89. Various factors are likely to support growth. More favourable agricultural conditions, sustained consumer confidence and easier hire-purchase terms will result in an improvement in consumer spending. The Mossel Bay Gas Project, the construction of toll roads, the Lesotho Highlands Water Project and increased spending on housing will also serve to stimulate economic activity further.

The better utilisation of production capacity and manpower by means of the job opportunity expansion programmes should further stimulate economic growth.

These are also negative factors such as the relatively low growth rates envisaged for our major trading partners and a domestic rate of inflation which still remains an inhibiting factor. Against this background, a growth rate of approximately 3% in the gross domestic product is expected.

CAPITAL BUDGET

Mr Speaker, the SATS succeeded in curtailing the original capital budget for 1987-88 by more than 2%. This reduction was offset by an equal amount for which provision was not made in the original Budget and for which Parliamentary appropriation is now required. Funding of capital projects during 1988-89, for which appropriation is required, amounts to R927 million. Details are included in the publication that will be tabled.

ESTIMATES OF REVENUE AND WORKING EXPENDITURE

The SATS is convinced that concerted action by the public and private sectors, as envisaged during the State President’s conference on 4 February 1988, will have a beneficial effect on the general economic climate of the country and the rate of inflation. The SATS will therefore, as a contribution towards combating inflation and stimulating the economy, not introduce a general increase in tariffs and fares. This is a courageous step which bears testimony to optimism in the future of our country.

However, contract rates will be either re-negotiated or adjusted in terms of the escalation formulae contained in the contracts. In compliance with the Government’s decision and in view of the unfavourable financial position of the SATS, general salary increases are not being granted. However, this decision does not affect normal incremental adjustments and increases in respect of occupational differentiation.

I am convinced that the sacrifices SATS employees and other employees of the State would have to make, coupled with the necessary support from the private sector, will have results greatly beneficial not only to our workers but also to the country as a whole.

The expected economic growth will not coincide with a large increase in export volumes and the SATS will have to do its utmost to find other ways and means to compensate for this. In view of the foregoing and other relevant economic parameters the SATS is budgeting for an income of R10 572 million and working expenditure of R10 848 in 1988-89. Included in the working expenditure is an amount of R577 million to provide for exchange losses. Notwithstanding this provision, the estimated deficit amounts to only R96 million.

APPRECIATION

Mr Speaker, I believe that the SATS is at present experiencing the biggest changes since 1910. On the managerial, economic and labour fronts the SATS is preparing itself for the challenges it will have to face during the nineties and the years thereafter.

I foresee a bright future for our work force and for the SATS as a business undertaking. I thank the trade unions for their positive contribution to these changes, especially in so far as their valuable inputs with the formulation of the South African Transport Services Conditions of Service Bill, 1988, are concerned.

Similarly, I wish to thank the Management of the SATS and every member of our work force for the selfless and efficient services rendered by them, sometimes under difficult circumstances, during the past year.

I am truly impressed by the quality of our workers.

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my stalwarts, the hon the Deputy Minister Myburgh Streicher and the three Commissioners of the South African Transport Services Board, Messrs Dupel Erasmus, Piet Aucamp and Koos Albertyn, for their continued support and loyalty.

As hon members are aware, Dr Anton Moolman was appointed General Manager of the SATS with effect from 1 February 1988 in the place of Dr Bart Grové, who retired. Dr Moolman, who recently turned 50 years of age, joined the SATS as statistician in 1959 and was appointed Deputy General Manager on 1 March 1983.

I should like to congratulate Dr Moolman sincerely on his appointment as General Manager at this youthful age and wish him every success in the important task that lies ahead.

TABLING

Mr Speaker, I now lay upon the Table—

1. 1. The Estimates of Expenditure of the South African Transport Services for the financial years ending 31 March 1988 and 31 March 1989, and
2. 2. A memorandum setting out the estimated financial results of the South African Transport Services for the 1987-88 and 1988-89 financial years, together with the latest financial and other statistics.

Bill, budget speech and papers tabled referred to Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in terms of Rule 43.

Mr Speaker, I move:

1. ECONOMIC BACKGROUND

On the introduction of the main Budget for 1987-88 on 3 June last year, it was indicated that the view was then held that the moderate revival in the domestic economy called for cautious further stimulation by the authorities. In particular, it was pointed out that there was still room for expansion, as indicated by such things as the appreciable surplus on the current account of the balance of payments, the relatively high level of unemployment, low rates of interest and surplus production capacity.

Insofar as the economy was influenced by the course of Budget spending, this objective was attained in great measure: it is now known that the recovery developed further momentum in the past year and that in the last quarter of 1987 the gross domestic product grew at an annualised rate of about 4,5%. For calendar 1987 the growth rate was however only 2,6%—which was nonetheless much better than the 1% for 1986.

In the fourth quarter of 1987 total domestic expenditure was some 9% above its level in the same quarter of 1986. For calendar 1987 this expenditure grew by more than 4,5%. Private consumption expenditure—and, at the end of last year, fixed investment too—made an important contribution to these increases.

As expected, the growth in domestic expenditure not only boosted local production but also led to a rise in imports. The surplus on the current account of the balance of payments thus shrank slightly, but for the calendar year it was still some R6 billion as against R7,2 billion for 1986.

The total net capital outflow from South Africa also fell appreciably in 1987 to R4,1 billion as against R8,4 billion in 1986. This enabled the Reserve Bank to increase its total net gold and foreign exchange reserves by about R2 billion over the year.

The recovery in the domestic economy was accompanied by a fall in the rate of inflation. The latest available figure for the consumer price index shows that over the twelve months to January 1988 inflation rose by 14,2%, as against an increase of 16,1% for calendar 1987 and 18,6% for calendar 1986.

Conditions in the money and capital market remained reasonably easy, but at the end of last year clear signs began to appear of an increased demand for funds. The rise in money and capital market interest rates in the recent past reflects the quickening recovery of the economy.

Against this background it was not necessary that the Government do much more after the main Budget for 1987-88 by way of special stimulation of the economy. Indeed, care had to be taken that the Government not contribute too much, by way of exceptional additional expenditure, to the rising demand in the private sector. Although requests were received from departments during the year for large additional expenditures, these were very strictly scrutinised and only absolutely necessary services were allowed.

Additional Expenditure

Hon members will be aware that Parliament last year approved a main Budget for 1987-88 of R34,441 billion. Including the estimated statutory expenditure of R12,427 billion, the total estimated Government expenditure under Part I of the main Budget came to R46,868 billion.

Net excess expenditures for the present financial year which ends on 31 March 1988 are estimated at R968,4 million after taking into account expected savings of R230 million. On a percentage basis the net excess expenditures compare as follows with those for the past three financial years:

The fact that these expenditures amount to only 2,1% of the estimated expenditure in the main Budget for the 1987-88 financial year, as against 5,3% in the previous year and an average of 5,8% in the three preceding years, is naturally most gratifying.

The Government has in the past frequently been criticised in Parliament and elsewhere for what has been called its “grotesque” overspending. There were however, economic and other circumstances that could hardly have been foreseen when the respective main Budgets were drawn up and which necessitated additional expenditure. The reasons for these expenditures, as well as the underlying circumstances, were furnished to Parliament and were fully discussed. It is all in Hansard. I do not wish to repeat all these arguments here, but I must nonetheless point out that various unforeseen events occurred in these years and had to be accommodated in the additional appropriations—such as faster general cost and price increases, the unfavourable course of interest and exchange rates, the necessity to finance the restoration of public order and safety, work creation measures, and so on. Moreover, this occurred—and particularly during the preceding two years—against a background of general recessionary conditions in the private sector. The Government therefore found it necessary from time to time to incur additional expenditure with the deliberate purpose of stimulating the economy. For the most part, then, the excess expenditures of the past several years were incurred for good reasons.

There are also certain technical reasons why the excess expenditures in the past year are relatively smaller than in preceding years. For one thing, the main Budget was introduced on 3 June last year and not in March as is usual. This meant that the expenditures could be more precisely estimated.

The impact of the Government’s determination to subject total Government expenditures to strong discipline appears very clearly in the results achieved. The hon the State President emphasised, in his speech at the opening of Parliament on the 5th February this year, that the Government intends within a reasonable time to bring both the size and the composition of the Budget back within affordable limits, and the additional expenditures for 1987-88 that are tabled today reflect the first fruits of this resolute policy.

Mr Speaker, permit me to express a particular word of thanks to the hon the State President for his backing in this regard, and to my colleagues and all heads of State departments for their support and active contribution in taking this step towards putting the State finances on a better basis. In the longer term the continuance of this firm discipline cannot but promote a sound South African economy.

*2. ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE 1987-88

The total expenditure for the financial year may be summarised as follows:

As already mentioned, it was indicated in the Budget Speech for 1987-88 that the short-term fiscal and monetary strategy for the present financial year should be mildly expansionary. With this in mind the budgeted expenditure of R47 836 million, which represents an increase of 18,9% on the actual expenditure for 1986-87 of R40 247 million—or about 3% in real terms—would appear to have had the desired expansionary effect.

Although it is only the request for R594,2 million that is today being submitted for Parliamentary approval, I should like also to give some particulars of the estimated statutory excess expenditure, as follows:

The additional amounts required by the individual provinces, which must be voted from the respective accounts for provincial services, are dealt with in Clauses 2 to 5 of the Additional Appropriation Bill, 1988.

Particulars of the additional sums required by the provinces appear in their additional budgets, which have already been tabled and which will be dealt with by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

To summarise:

3. ADDITIONAL VOTE—R594,2 MILLION

In returning to the additional amount to be voted by Parliament I would point out that in the discussion of their Votes during the Committee Stage my colleagues will where necessary deal with the requested supplementary amounts in detail. The most important services requiring additional funds are however the following:

Natal flood disaster

The following expenditure is proposed for 1987-88 in this regard:

I must point out to hon members that in the handling of the Natal flood disaster—as indeed in the case of any natural disaster—a specific pattern of relief and repair emerges. To begin with, there is the immediate need for emergency accommodation, food, clothing, blankets, cash and medical attention for the homeless and the stricken, as well as the restoration (sometimes temporary) of essential services such as water, power, telephones, bridges and road connections in order to maintain the delivery of essential commodities. In the longer term the damaged infrastructure must be rehabilitated. The sum of almost R124 million that will be spent on the chief immediate needs in 1987-88 does not represent the full cost of the flood disaster to the Exchequer, therefore. The further expenditure to be incurred over the longer term will therefore carry over to the following and possibly subsequent financial years, and will be treated in the normal way in the budgetary process.

Public order and security

The SA Police requires an additional R50 million, chiefly for logistical support and medical benefits. The Prison Service requires an additional R30,7 million, for indispensable supplies and professional and special services.

Transport

The department is seeking an additional R80 million, of which R75 million constitutes a contribution to the account for Black, Coloured and Indian transport services; the balance of R5 million will be applied to cover obligations in respect of the cost of repairs to the Mlazi Canal, to which reference has already been made.

Improvement of Service Conditions

The additional amount required in this regard is R116,8 million and comprises two elements, as follows:

Mineral and Energy Affairs

This vote requires an additional R58,8 million, which is attributable chiefly to a greater contribution by the State to the expenditure of the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa and to assistance to certain gold mines.

Administrations for Own Affairs

A total amount of R79,6 million is sought by these administrations. Full particulars will be presented in the respective Houses, but a summary follows:

Other

The excess expenditure I have singled out covers the greater portion of the amount being sought in the Additional Appropriation as well as the supplementary amounts for statutory transfer. As already mentioned, my hon colleagues will furnish more particulars when their Votes are under discussion.

CONCLUSION

The additional expenditures tabled today are appreciably smaller than has been generally expected. Even if the additional amount required for statutory expenditure is brought into account, the total, after allowing for savings, is less than R1 billion.

The total expenditure of the central Government for the 1987-88 financial year is now estimated at R47,8 billion—an increase of 18,9% on the actual expenditure for 1986-87.

In view of the continuing growth in spending by the private sector it remains essential to exercise strict control over any further increases in Government expenditure. I shall return to this theme when the main Appropriation for 1988-89 is presented to Parliament shortly.

The Joint Sitting rose at 16h24.

Mr Chairman, speakers who took part in this debate yesterday paid particular attention to matters pertaining to education and agriculture, to which my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council replied. Further remaining matters in this regard will be fruitfully discussed in subsequent debates.

However, a few questions were put to me—I am thinking particularly of the questions asked by the hon member for Yeoville about the underexpenditure of funds that had been earmarked for job creation, and I should like to give the hon member for Yeoville a full reply. I shall come back to this later.

Several questions were also asked about the flood disaster committee, and proposals in this regard were made by the hon members for Yeoville and Pinetown. The chairman of the committee, my colleague the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, has indicated that if circumstances in connection with the flood disaster allow, he would like to participate in the Third Reading debate tomorrow and reply personally to these aspects.

At the close of the debate yesterday evening I indicated, in reply to the speech made by the hon member for Brits, that there was an increasing radicalisation to be seen in the ranks of the CP. In fact, the speech of the hon member for Brits was a typical example of this radicalisation. The hon member for Brits was concerned about the fact that there had to be equal rights in a unitary state.

What he was saying by implication was that the Whites had to receive preferential treatment, regardless of the needs of other population groups in this country. This is the attitude of preferential treatment for Whites. The Whites must lack nothing, no matter what the position of others is. If one thinks that the hon member was a clergyman, which was of course the case before he became a member of the AWB …

Come on, Dawie! That does not become you! [Interjections.]

Order!

The fact is that the CP is making ever more frequent use of extreme terms to state their viewpoints and their policies, not only in this House but also in public speeches and in the publications of that party. The hon the Minister of Finance has already referred to this, and yesterday my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture also spoke about it. I should like to dwell on this tendency for a while. It is obvious that an increasing insensitivity, even antagonism, to the rights and claims of other population groups in South Africa has arisen in the ranks of the CP.

Now you are merely stirring up trouble.

A former member of that party, Mr Daan van der Merwe …

He is still a member.

He is still a member; so much the better.

Less than a year ago he argued until he was blue in the face in a TV debate that the CP’s policy did not imply the removal of large numbers of people. Today, however, the CP accepts that the inevitable result of their policy is the uprooting and removal of millions of people. How else are they going to implement their policy? [Interjections.] The two are the same. [Interjections.]

Nowadays, the CP advocates without apology— the hon member for Lichtenburg is a good example in this regard—that the existing rights of Brown, Black and Asian people in this country should be curtailed and even removed. They openly advocate greater preferential treatment for Whites at the expense of the interests and legitimate claims of other population groups. Furthermore, there is a constant racist protest against any expenditure aimed at addressing and trying to alleviate the major handicaps suffered by other population groups.

Now you are speaking like a Prog. That is not true.

Is it not true? To prove it one can quote endlessly from speeches made by those hon members, and from documents, to prove each of these statements. There is a contempt for the correctness of figures and the true facts when it comes to the propaganda of the CP. Recently the hon the Minister of Finance again dealt with it effectively.

There is an increasing arrogance and pride in the ranks of the CP when Whites are being discussed, as if they can claim, on the grounds of their race and colour, to be God’s chosen people in this country.

That is not true!

Yes, it is true. Nowadays, what is more, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is even defending resistance … [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow these meaningless interjections. Hon members must stop this now; otherwise they must leave the House. Remarks are constantly being made. The hon the Minister has the privilege of this House to say exactly what he wants to say, within the rules, and he is not going to be handicapped. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The latest example is that the hon the leader of the Official Opposition now justifies even resistance and violence on the same basis on which the leader of the UDF justifies it. Gradually the CP and the UDF and other organisations in the country are contributing to the increasing radicalisation and polarisation of the situation in South Africa.

What is the reason for this attitude? What is the reason for this increasing extremism in the ranks of the CP? It seems to me that the only conclusion one can draw is that the reason for this must be found in the increasing influence the AWB is exerting on that party. [Interjections.] There is a great deal of embarrassment in those ranks the moment the AWB is mentioned. Various speakers in the House have referred to this matter during the past weeks and the questions that were asked by the hon members for Sasolburg, Fauresmith and others have still not been answered.

Just as my question has not been answered either.

No, the only reaction of the Official Opposition is an indignation …

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

No, I am not prepared to answer any questions now. I am not prepared to allow myself to be sidetracked now by questions.

The hon members of the Official Opposition are embarrassed. They are embarrassed when mention is made of the AWB and their connection with that movement. They are indignant because they defend the AWB.

They identify with the AWB. They patiently tolerate the fact that office-bearers of the CP may be members of the AWB. Indeed, they patiently tolerate their Parliamentary caucus also including members of the AWB. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition himself said that he was quite happy that one day when the CP comes to power, the AWB will be solely a cultural organisation. [Interjections.] I believe that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is mistaken. Why are so many responsible people in South Africa worried about the existence and activities of the AWB? [Interjections.] The reason is that the terrible consequences of a movement that made race the foundation of its Fascist constitutional regime, is still fresh in our memories. That is the reason. From the innocent emergence in the early twenties of the German National Socialist Workers’ Party, with its anti-parliamentary institutions, its leadership cult and its superior-race ideology, a horror emerged, a monster that shook the world to its very foundations. That is why people are concerned. They are concerned because they observe the signs and the similarities which remind them of the dictator and the reign of terror which was once spread across the world by national socialism.

Your party supported them!

With that I am not saying that the AWB must be equated with the Nazis. I am not saying that. However, it is a disconcerting revelation to compare the programme of principles of the AWB with that of the 25 principles of the German National Socialist Workers’ Party. It is a disconcerting revelation to note how many obvious and even verbatim similarities there are between these two programmes of principles. It is difficult to come to a conclusion other than that those who drafted the AWB’s programme of principles carefully consulted the programme of principles of the German National Socialist Workers’, or Nazi, Party, before they drew up their own programme of principles. It is difficult to arrive at another conclusion, because there are so many obvious similarities. I am going to refer to a few of these principles.

The Nazi Party had 25 principles, the first of which stated the aim of the party quite innocently;

Here “ein Grosdeutschland” is mentioned. In its programme of principles the AWB aims at the following:

With regard to the decisive matter of citizenship …

The unification of Christians!

Order! The hon member for Bethal has already made several interjections and the hon member must now listen patiently to what the hon the Minister is saying. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I can understand why the hon member or Bethal is beginning to perspire. [Interjections.] On the decisive matter of citizenship the Nazi Party states in principle 4 that only members of the German race—“wer deutschen Blutes ist”—may become citizens of the people’s state. The AWB that seeks—

states that only members of the White race—

may be citizens of the State.

Does that include Derby-Lewis?

I think that excludes him. [Interjections.] Those who do not pass the citizenship test based on this narrow, racially-based definition, that is, those who cannot be regarded as part of the privileged race, become aliens in their own country. That includes Whites. I am afraid it includes quite a number of hon members of the smaller opposition parties. They will be unable to fulfil the requirements of this test for citizenship. They will then become strangers in their own country. On the subject of these aliens, the Nazis say in principle 5:

Hon members such as the hon member for Yeoville will be able to tell us what those laws for aliens mean.

The AWB states exactly the same in its Programme of Principles—incidentally also in principle 5:

Both the Nazis and the AWB reject the parliamentary system. The Nazis refer to it as a “demoralising parliamentary administration” while the AWB speaks of the “outmoded parliamentary system” that is based on the liberal British-Jewish—take note—party political system.

The Nazis reject appointments in the Government on the grounds of what they call “politieke partybegunstiging sonder oorweging van karakter en vermoë”. The drafters of the AWB’s principles adopted this section almost verbatim and rejected the parliamentary tendency to fill Government posts with a view to party-political considerations rather than those of character and ability. Hon members must take note that they use the same wording. In this way I could continue to show the close relationship between the AWB and the Nazi Party.

Is it coincidental that the premises and the Programme of Principles of the AWB show almost verbatim similarities to those of the Nazis? I maintain that that the AWB is modelled on the Nazi Party. Did it not have its origin in the same emotion of racial superiority? Is it not, like the Nazi movement, a Fascist organization that rejects parliamentary democracy?

As long ago as 1932 Konrad Heiden’s Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus appeared and he warned at that early stage—I am quoting from the English translation:

How right he was. Here we now have a Fascist organisation in our midst, and the CP embraces them. Is it not a dangerous situation which has originated in our midst? [Interjections.] Here we have an active movement which according to its own evidence is still growing by recruiting new members, and that in many ways shows similarities to the Nazi Party.

The similarities are obvious. I have already referred to the same racial superiority, the blood-and-fatherland theory, the anti-parliamentary political system, the socialism, the militarism, the leadership cult, the red and black emblem and the distorted admixture of religion.

A misplaced admixture of religion was also a characteristic of national socialism. Heiden refers to it on page 306 of his book:

It is a dangerous combination of religious and political symbolism.

In an AWB publication, Vaalster, 4 September 1987, the significance of the emblem of the AWB is explained. It is stated:

Below that is a call to join the AWB, in the words: “…en help stuit die satan in sy terreur”. I submit that the satan referred to here actually implies the Government and its supporters. As an Afrikaner and a Christian I reject with displeasure this distortion, this falsification of the message of redemption of Jesus Christ into a political symbol on the flag of an organisation like the AWB. [Interjections.]

What does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, a theologian, ex-clergyman and Christian, say.

Calvinist.

Is he satisfied with his statement that the AWB is merely a cultural organisation? Is he satisfied? I think he is making a mistake. The AWB is a dangerous political movement that is arousing and nurturing the deep emotions of fear and prejudice, of aggression and selfishness in people, emotions it will eventually utilise for its own political aims. I am worried that many young men in this country, young Afrikaner boys, might be drawn into this movement for the sake of adventure and excitement. I hope they will come to their senses in time, because they are treading a dangerous path.

Now we know that the AWB has close ties with the CP. Therefore it is difficult to come to a conclusion other than that the increasing radicalisation in that party is the result of the influence of the AWB, … [Interjections.] …because as I have already indicated, there is a hardening of opinions in the ranks of the CP. There is a growing unapproachability towards the rights of others, and I have noticed recently that there is a greater inclination to defend racist points of view. All of this confirms the impression that the AWB is exerting an increasing influence on the CP. And the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition dismisses the presence of AWB members in his party and in his parliamentary caucus as meaningless.

Then they cannot even count.

Those hon members who accepted membership of the AWB—as fellow parliamentarians I must accept their integrity, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will also have to accept their integrity—undertook with their signature, when they accepted membership, to strive for the implementation of the principles of the AWB. Indeed, according to the subscription and undertaking that they endorsed, they will also contribute a monthly sum of at least R5 as individual or family so that the AWB can fight for this programme of principles, and its realisation.

How do hon members of the CP explain this dual loyalty in their ranks? Then, in their embarrassment they cry out time and again : “Yes, but what about the Afrikaner Broederbond?” I also want to react to that.

Are you a member?

Sir, what are the facts? Let me give the hon member for Overvaal the facts. The AB is not an anti-parliamentary organisation or a Fascist movement. The AB believes in democracy and the broadening thereof in a responsible and just way. [Interjections.] The AB does not have a political programme of action, like that of the AWB, that is aimed at the establishment of a specific political order.

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

No, Sir, I am not going to answer any questions now. [Interjections.] The Afrikaner Broederbond does not hold meetings and distribute pamphlets to win public support and thereby establish a power base for itself in this country. [Interjections.] The Afrikaner Broederbond is a confidential discussion society and has members that support various—I am emphasising this—political parties. Anyone who compares the AB to the AWB is being malicious. I know that there are hon members in the ranks of the CP—including the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—who, if they want to be honest, know that there is no comparison. There is no comparison at all. The AWB is an organisation that is registered as a political party, with a programme of principles—principles that hold far-reaching political and constitutional implications for this country.

A government behind a government!

The AWB’s programme of principles has far-reaching implications for this country, and the AWB is building its own dangerous power base in this country by means of public meetings, pamphlets, the recruiting of members and a leadership cult. On top of that the CP allows this organisation into its midst—even into its caucus. [Interjections.] What can people say of the leadership that allows that? Does that party not have party discipline over its principles and its viewpoints? If that…

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

No, Sir, I am not prepared to answer any questions now.

Not now, and not later either! [Interjections.]

I am particularly not prepared to answer any questions from the hon member for Overvaal.

But it is such an easy little question! [Interjections.]

Sir, does the CP not have a team spirit and loyalty in their ranks? Or can everyone simply run in any direction they choose? Can everyone work according to his own programme of principles? Can everyone decide on his own programme of action? [Interjections.] Sir, what confidence should people have in the leadership that openly allows that in its own ranks? I want to remind those hon members of the words from Scriptures that are well known to them: “No man can serve two masters.”

Mr Chairman, the fact is that the CP can no longer escape giving a clear standpoint on the AWB. They will have to justify themselves in this regard. They will have to justify themselves especially in view of the references which I made available to them today.

Mr Chairman, I should like to return to a few questions that were put to me. My time has almost expired. Nevertheless, in my reply during the Third Reading debate tomorrow, I shall reply in full to the matter raised by the hon member for Yeoville, namely the under-expenditure of finance earmarked for the job creation programme. With that, Sir, my time has now expired.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—86: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Badenhorst, P J; Blanché, J P I; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, J CG; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Camerer, S M; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, L; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schlebusch, A L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Smit, F P; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Steyn, P T; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, P J; Terblanche, A J W P S; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Walt, A T; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, L M J; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Jordaan, A L; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Meyer, W D; Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—32: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Dalling, D J; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Jacobs, S C; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Malcomess, D J N; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Schwarz, H H; Soal, P G; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House can always be relied upon to support any measure we consider to be in the national interest, and the Copyright Amendment Bill is such a measure. We would therefore like to congratulate the hon the Minister and thank him for bringing it before the House.

The reasons for our support of this Bill are many, chief among them being that it will bring about more rapid industrial development, a subsequent increase in employment opportunities, a reduction in costs and, hopefully, also considerable savings in foreign exchange.

There is, however, one facet of the deliberations of the standing committee which causes a slight measure of concern, although I must stress that we have no reluctance or hesitation whatsoever in supporting the Bill. Although many objections were registered and transmitted to the standing committee, the objectors were not afforded the opportunity to make representations in person. We feel that in the interests of the broadening of democracy this facility should be made available to them. This side of the House nevertheless fully supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis for the support he expressed on behalf of his party. Regarding his reference to representations, he should bear in mind that those objections were in fact reflected in the correspondence which was submitted to the standing committee and considered by it.

*As a result of the wording of the Copyright Act, which includes the compromise wording arrived at in 1983, this legislation, which was meant essentially to protect the artistic work of the author, is also being utilised to protect other immaterial rights.

The Act as it reads at present denotes that industrial designs and authors’ works receive unqualified and extensive protection for a period of 10 years.

It is interesting that there is no such protection for South African industrialists or creators of industrial designs in most other member countries of the International Berne Union. Foreign industrialists therefore enjoy extensive and unqualified protection for their works here in South Africa, whereas they do not receive this protection in their own countries.

The proposed amendment is putting the situation to rights. The creator of immaterial goods will now receive protection in terms of the Copyright Act only if reproductions of industrial models do not have a primarily utilitarian purpose and are not made mainly by means of an industrial process.

By removing this protection, people who received such protection in terms of the Act previously will now refrain, because of healthy competition, from charging exorbitant prices for their commodities. Such price decreases can be expected in the technological sphere in particular, and perhaps more especially in the motor and spare parts industries.

As the hon member said, this approach also holds the possibility of employment creation in South Africa. Against the background of the economic upsurge we are experiencing at present, this Bill is particularly timeous. It will be especially beneficial to the manufacturing industry as a result of the further entry of small business.

At present, when sanctions and boycotts are the order of the day, foreign copyright owners can deal South Africa a crushing blow by not supplying South Africa with spare parts and other industrial and utilitarian articles or by cutting off their supply of these articles, and at the same time preventing the local manufacture thereof in terms of legislation. The proposed legislation will defeat such a strategy.

This amendment does not deny a person any of the rights he has outside the principal Act. It merely denies him the extended rights he has at present under the Copyright Act. If an industrial article complies with the necessary requirements, it can still receive protection by means of patent or model registration in terms of the relevant legislation. In addition, the designer of the original model is still protected against unlawful competition as this has emerged in our common law.

This amendment will also bring us into step with the legal position in the majority of the large industrial countries. In my opinion there is no justification for South Africa’s having to provide greater protection under the Act than the other countries.

This also entails—I think this is important—an important jurisprudential improvement in that purely industrial items are being separated from intellectual creations such as literary and true artistic works.

I should like to support this Bill, because in my opinion it is a meaningful improvement on the present position.

Mr Chairman, this piece of legislation must be one of the most contentious pieces of legislation which has reached the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry in recent years. In my experience, certainly, it is virtually unprecedented to receive such a wad of submissions. In many cases these are authoritative submissions from legal firms and people with much experience in the field. Obviously it is a highly contentious matter as well as a highly technical matter and an issue on which the profession itself is divided. That gave cause for serious concern on the part of myself and my colleague from the PFP on the standing committee.

The Advisory Committee on Copyright which is charged to advise the Government on its legislation and its approach to copyright matters was itself apparently not able to give a clear recommendation in regard to this Bill either. Therefore we were confronted on the standing committee with two sides to a very complicated technical argument; two sides taking vehemently strong positions in favour of and against the Bill, and these divisions reached right into the profession.

Quite clearly this is a matter in which a great deal of vested interest applies, and a great deal of money is at stake for the people on either side of the argument. There are also jobs at stake under this particular piece of legislation.

In the light of this, therefore I want to express publicly, as I also did in the standing committee, my very strong regret that the standing committee did not see fit to call for evidence, to permit all the people who submitted all these papers and who have these strong views to come and talk to us and state their case and be cross-examined. [Interjections.] Most of the people who made submissions were quite prepared to come and talk to the standing committee.

In the Bill is a provision for retrospectivity to 25 September of last year. Therefore there is no reason at all why an extra week or two of taking evidence would have affected the situation. If in the end we supported the Bill, the timing of the decision would be irrelevant. I fail to understand why the standing committee refused to take evidence on a matter that has generated so much heat.

It is left for us therefore to judge on inadequate evidence as to what we should do. The case against this Bill is that, by lifting the restrictions on copyright in this way, we are encouraging industrial piracy. Another point for the case against it is that we are breaking a long-standing reputation for ethical behaviour in this field, opening the doors to people to copy slavishly what has been developed by companies over previous years, developments which have founded jobs and income for those companies, and allowing pirates simply to exploit the work of others.

Another point in the case against it is the retrospectivity aspect. Clearly, making it retrospective to 25 September last year is going to affect the interests of people involved in litigation. Whether we have the full details of all the legislation and all the interests at stake we do not know, but that there will be an effect is clear.

On the other hand there is the case in favour of this legislation. The protection which is being provided under this copyright legislation goes beyond protection for real inventiveness and real genius in the creation of industrial items. We have the Patents Act and registered copyright designs for that, and the copyright protection granted under existing legislation was extra, over and above the existing protection, which is really marginal protection.

The second point in favour of this legislation is that the status quo protected foreigners to a point beyond the protection which they enjoyed in their own countries. One should ask why that would be necessary.

The third point is that this protection has been detrimental to the development of South African businesses and South African entrepreneurs seeking to provide a local service with local facilities and providing jobs locally. Coupled to that is the fact that the protection provided in South Africa under our law was among the most stringent in the world.

The fourth point is that we do need, as a national priority, to develop industries, to encourage entrepreneurs and to create jobs for our own people; and finally, we need to conserve our foreign exchange resources to a maximum degree, and we cannot afford foreign exchange leaving the country unnecessarily.

We are therefore left with a case for and a case against without having heard people making those cases in the standing committee. We must judge on the information available to us. On the basis of our judgement it is our feeling that we must support this Bill in the interests of developing local business and local jobs, bearing in mind that the protection that is being removed is not undue in terms of the Berne Convention to which we are a party. It is also not undue if one takes as an example what has happened in Canada, as highlighted in the hon the Deputy Minister’s address. Neither is it undue if one bears in mind the protection that remains under the Patents Act and the copyright registration provisions. On balance, therefore, we are going to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis supports the Bill on behalf of the Official Opposition. The hon member for Constantia also supports the Bill on behalf of the alternative opposition.

I want to say immediately that I am surprised about the criticism the hon member for Constantia and, to a lesser extent, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis expressed, as if the standing committee had not been prepared to hear evidence on this particular Bill. Numerous bodies made representations. Their representations were distributed to each member of the standing committee. They were then studied and discussed on the standing committee. After discussing these representations on the basis of the facts that were submitted to us, it was decided that it was not necessary to take down evidence. During the course of my speech I shall indicate why this decision was taken.

Neither of these parties expressed themselves in favour of or against the legislation in the standing committee. The sat on the fence. Not one of them requested that evidence be heard. But now they are trying to score debating points.

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

Mr Chairman, I do not have time for his questions. [Interjections.]

The Copyright Amendment Bill seeks to remove industrial articles which have a utilitarian purpose and are manufactured by means of an industrial process, from the jurisdiction of the present Copyright Act, Act 98 of 1978, as amended. These articles should not fall under that Act in the first place. Certainly the legislative intention was never that such industrial articles should be affected by that Act; in any case not to the extent this happens at present.

That being the case, the amendment before the House implies an important step, especially against the background of the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation which was submitted to Parliament during the previous session. I want to emphasize that this implies an important step in the deregulation of legislation which is at present restricting the development of private entrepreneurship, the promotion of competition and consequently the creation of employment opportunities. That is why it was not necessary for us to take down evidence.

By implication, the purpose of the amending Bill is to effect the freer operation of market forces. Of necessity this it will give rise to lower consumer prices in respect of affected goods. Spare parts especially will be effected. This could also lead to a decrease in input costs for various sectors such as the mining and agricultural industries.

In addition this amendment is of the utmost importance to the industrial sector, because if the full implications of copyright are kept in mind, it is clear that the present position necessarily has and will have a detrimental effect on industrial development in South Africa, especially as far as the entry of smaller industrialists to the manufacturing industry is concerned. This was mentioned by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. It has been proved in practice by the constantly increasing stream of litigation and threatening litigation over the past seven to eight years, compelling South African industrialists time and again to terminate the production of some or other industrial article, sometimes after having produced the relevant article openly for a number of years.

In most cases the party that instituted the litigation, or threatened to do so, was a foreign company relying on copyrights it allegedly had in a drawing or design. These are rights they could not get or retain under the legislation on patents or models. This created an impossible situation, which will be rectified by this amendment to the legislation.

I want to single out a further important aspect, viz that in the present milieu of threatening boycotts and sanctions, the door is left wide open for foreign copyright owners to deal our country a crushing blow. They can cut off the availability of spare parts and other industrial and utilitarian articles, and at the same time prevent them from being manufactured locally.

I believe that this is a very important and essential amending Bill. I should like to thank the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology for introducing this amendment to the House. I should like to support it.

Mr Chairman, if I understood the hon member Mr Hattingh correctly, he made a statement that there was no call for additional evidence by the standing committee. I would like to emphasise that, in fact, was not the case. We in these benches made a very earnest plea …

So did we.

We made a very earnest plea that the people who had submitted representations be allowed to attend the committee meeting and give verbal evidence. The hon members of the Official Opposition did the same.

What was of concern to us was the somewhat undue haste with which this legislation was being dealt with. It was clear that there was a lot of controversy—as has been pointed out already by the hon member for Constantia -regarding this legislation and a wealth of written representations was submitted. We felt that based on those written submissions and to give the matter honest attention people should have been allowed to give verbal evidence to the committee. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by thanking hon members for their support of this Bill. I was not, of course, a member of the standing committee, and I do not want to become involved in a debate on what happened in the standing committee.

You must apologise to the hon member.

How does the Chairman report to you?

The Chairman did, in fact, report to me that it was his standpoint and that the majority of the members of the standing committee accepted that all arguments had been presented and that no new arguments would come to the fore in the hearing of evidence.

I also took pains with the Second Reading speech because this is a matter of great importance to me. One wants to have all the facts very clearly on record in Hansard and a very comprehensive Second Reading speech was prepared in which the whole historical background was set out.

†I want to thank the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis for his congratulations and for his support of this legislation.

*The hon member for Port Elizabeth North referred to motor vehicle spares and to the manufacturing industry, which is indeed important. In every country these small industrialists normally enter the manufacturing industry by starting to manufacture spare parts. Over the past few years the SBDC has succeeded in establishing quite a few small business undertakings. Analysis shows us that only about 5% of the money employed actually helped to establish small industrialists. Apart from all the other good work done by the SBDC, it is also necessary to involve the small industrialists in the economy. As far as I am concerned, this is consequently one of the most important steps towards doing this.

Those who have been charged with infringing copyright because they manufactured three-dimensional industrial articles were chiefly small industrialists forced out of the manufacturing industry because others saw an opportunity to create monopolistic conditions for themselves there.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Constantia. He rightly mentioned that there were irreconcilable views, and in a competent manner summed up the standpoints from two sides. He raised a point, however, which I merely want to set straight for record purposes. He said that according to the information at his disposal the advisory committee had not adopted a clear standpoint. I also heard that such a rumour was doing the rounds. It is a statutory advisory committee under the chairmanship of a judge, and the facts available to the hon member are incorrect.

A memorandum dated 5 August 1987, which I received from the Advisory Committee on Copyright, dealt with whether they should advise me on certain matters of principle. It reads:

I then notified them of my decision that the principle of reciprocity in the country should apply. It is a principle for which the Berne Convention makes provision. Subsequently, on 25 September, we published what is, to my mind, important notice in the Gazette—by law the Minister is empowered to issue notices—ie that reciprocity would apply. What this amounts to is that in terms of this Act foreigners in South Africa will not have copyright which they do not have in their own countries under the copyright laws of those countries.

That was not the end of it, however, and I want to mention a few more points. At a meeting held by the Advisory Committee on Copyright on 15 August it was resolved that draft regulations and a draft Bill concerning section 15 (3A)—that is also the subject of the Bill before us—of the Copyright Act should be drawn up.

On 19 September 1987 they held a meeting, the minutes being signed by the chairman. As far as I know, Mr Justice Harms was the chairman because Mr Justice McCreath, the appointed chairman, was unfortunately absent. He nominated Mr Justice Harms, however, to act as chairman. The minutes were subsequently signed by Mr Justice McCreath. I quote from point 13 of the minutes:

I therefore received a report from the advisory committee to the effect that they accepted this amendment.

The hon member for Constantia also mentioned the backdating aspect. The State law advisors also pointed out to us that it was important to backdate the commencement of this Bill to 25 September 1987, because as far as copyright was concerned, in terms of the Berne Convention we had to treat foreigners on an equal footing with local inhabitants, and since 25 September 1987 foreigners have generally not had copyright protection in regard to three-dimensional industrial articles, because they do not have that protection abroad.

I should like to refer to the amending Act of 1983. Today, in a certain sense, we are cleaning up the Statute Book in which, as a result of shortcomings in previous legislation, things have gone wrong. The Copyright Act, 1965, did not embody these problems, but in 1978 it was consolidated and a new Act was passed by Parliament. That Act had a defect. The major debate to which hon members referred was actually the result of the Copyright Act, 1978.

A debate therefore ensued, with the majority of the practitioners and industrialists in favour of the standpoint we are endorsing here today, and a small minority opposed to it. That debate led to a compromise standpoint. It is a long story, which I also investigated. It resulted in an amendment to the 1983 Act. On reflection let me state that it was a very grave error. Today we are correcting an error that crept into the Act in 1983.

I must say that in 1983 the hon member for Yeoville—he is unfortunately not here today— argued very strongly in favour of the standpoint we are incorporating into this Bill today. Hon members have perhaps read his Hansard speech too. I must say that I fully support the argument he put forward at the time. It is a sensible argument. I merely want to refer to one of his points by quoting from that speech (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1983, col 6643):

Then I also want to quote further from what the hon member for Yeoville said. (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1983, col 6646):

On reflection the hon member for Yeoville was quite right.

I also want to thank the hon member Mr C P Hattingh for his support. I also think that this legislation will lead to lower prices for spare parts. There are many manufacturers of original equipment in the country who do not think of making their profits from the original equipment, but ultimately from spare parts. In this country they had such a safe haven, which is to be found nowhere else in the world in any comparable country, i e that of having the sole right in regard to spare parts.

If the hon member for Brakpan does not mind, I just want to refer to the matter which he brought to my attention at the beginning of the year. It is merely one of many such matters. He wrote to me in connection with a small industrialist in his constituency. It is a family business which has been in existence since approximately 1920. They have about 70 people in their employ and they manufacture spare parts for certain equipment. They have received a letter in which they are being charged in terms of the Copyright Act. They are being charged in regard to all the spare parts they have manufactured, multiplied by the profit which the manufacturer of the original equipment would have made if he had sold them, together with the interest over the years. This is a small firm of 70 people. They are being summoned for an amount of between R22 million and R28 million. We cannot allow that in this country. I told the hon member’s voters that fortunately we could help them.

I also want to say that I agree with the sentiments hon members expressed here. I do not want to repeat all that. I merely want to state, in conclusion, that the legal reforms in regard to immaterial property rights do not end here. We have instructed the Department of Commerce and Industry to have all the Acts examined thoroughly to determine whether the Acts support the Government’s economic policy in every respect. I think there are approximately six Acts relating to immaterial property. They will be first in line. This is the first amendment. Next year we shall be making minor amendments to all the Acts.

To my mind the relevant Act we are examining today, i e the Copyright Act, has not yet been “cleaned up” completely. We have eliminated the majority of the problems with this amendment. Hon members will see that under the definition of artistic work reference is still made to “works of craftmanship of a technical nature.” That shall not be in the Act.

Section 1 of the Copyright Act—Act No 98 of 1978—defines “drawing” as including:

In regard to drawings of a technical nature, including engineering drawings, architectural drawings, conventional drawings of buildings, etc, it is our policy not to grant copyright protection any longer. We are indeed prepared to consider the registration of functional models. Those, however, are all questions concerning refinements to of the Statute Book, and we shall be approaching this House on that question next year.

In conclusion let me thank hon members once again for their contributions. I want to say that the brevity of this legislation should not influence one’s judgement of it. This is legislation that will have wide-ranging implications for industry.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the measure under discussion embodies only two amendments. The first is that relating to the composition of the council and the second that involving the aspect of remuneration.

The previous provision in the Act that the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Forestry Council shall be appointed from the ranks of the three officials designated by the Minister is now being amended so that the chairman and the vice-chairman can be elected from the ranks of all the other designated members. As far as we in this party are concerned, this is a good amendment. We regard it as an improvement on the previous situation. Hence we gladly support it.

The second amendment involves the question of council members and alternate members of that council receiving allowances. In terms of the amendment they shall now no longer merely receive allowances, in future receiving remuneration which can, in fact, be regarded as remuneration. This brings the remuneration package of the Forestry Council into line with that of other existing councils instituted in terms of other Acts. We on this side of the House also support this provision. The CP therefore supports the Bill under discussion in its entirety.

Mr Chairman, first of all I should like to thank the hon member for Nigel for supporting this Bill.

The important departure which we find in the amendment contained in clause 1 of the Bill is that the Minister is being given an increased discretion in relation to appointing a chairman and vice-chairman from among any of the 20 members serving on the council, as opposed to electing them only from the ranks of the three officials from the department. Furthermore, I believe this is a more democratic way of electing council members. It also demonstrates the Government’s commitment to handing more responsibilities to the private sector.

The next point to which I want to address myself is the question of remuneration. I believe the amendment in this regard represents a very important step forward. This council carries a very heavy burden. Its members handle a vast volume of work, and very many hours of hard labour go into their deliberations in relation to exercising control over the forestry industry. Therefore, Sir, I believe that by remunerating those gentlemen it will certainly become possible to recruit the best men for the job.

With reference to the annual report of the Forestry Council for 1985-86 I should like to draw the attention of the House to the top priority that council is giving to research. I quote briefly from page 9 of that report:

The ideal is to concentrate research on, for instance, conservation. It is envisaged that some 22% of research will be carried out in respect of conservation, 30% on wood-processing and products, 43% on afforestation, 3% on harvesting and transport, and 2% on other remaining items.

If I may, I should also like to quote from the report on page 8 under the heading “Financing of research”. The Forestry Research Advisory Committee made certain recommendations, and I quote:

1. (a) Research directed at the fundamental concept of forestry and wood quality problems and their solutions. Examples are molecular and biological studies of locally grown trees and ratios of cellulose and lignin in wood.
2. (b) Long-term research which normally extends over three or more years and where continuity is a prerequisite for success.
3. (c) Research which is in the interest of forestry and forest products as a whole and which is not to the benefit of a specific sector only.
4. (d) Research aimed at maintaining the biological activities of the forest system on which the whole industry depends and which, inter alia, should deal with internal problems such as soil compaction and external influences, such as air pollution, water run-off, pests and disease.

The last recommendation is also very important. It reads:

1. (e) Research directed at sociological benefits and not for immediate commercial gain. Examples in this regard could be the prevention of soil erosion, the growing of fuel wood in more arid areas and the creation of job opportunities in rural areas.

Well read!

Sir, at present all the forestry institutions spend R11,3 million per annum on research. The estimated sale of timber amounts to approximately R5,33 billion per year. The amount spent on research is R11,3 million, which is 0,45% of the aforementioned amount, and is completely insufficient.

Research on the supply of and demand for timber has shown that underprovision is developing. Research programmes are necessary with a view to increasing the yield per hectare. The ideal surface area for new afforestration is 39 000 ha per annum, whereas we are only planting 8 600 ha per annum. That is one aspect in which research is extremely important. I appeal to the hon the Minister today for more money to be spent on this research.

With these few words I should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point talked about the need for more money for research for the forestry industry. What that had to do with the Bill before us I have no idea at all. However, he did quote certain sections of the council’s report to us and, when he did discuss the Bill, he did not get it all right either because the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman of the council by the Minister has nothing to do with elections. It is not a democratic process. These are appointments made by the Minister. It has nothing to do with elections at all.

At the moment, the council consist of 20 members and numbers among those members three officers of the Department of the Environment appointed by the Minister, among others, and, at present, the chairman and vice-chairman have to be appointed from those three members. This situation will now change in terms of the Bill before us and any member of the council may now be appointed as chairman or vice-chairman. This provision was asked for by the Forestry Council and we have no objection to it at all.

Whereas the members of the Forestry Council at present receive no remuneration at all for their services although they may be paid certain allowances, clause 2 now provides for the payment of all members of the council at a rate determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance. This brings the Forestry Council into line with all other statutory bodies. While we have no real objection to this in principle we understand that the present council did not ask to be paid, and we can therefore see no real reason why this provision has to be placed on the Statute Book at the moment.

Do we want to pay out money all the time? I cannot understand this demand for conformity, this insistence that members of every statutory board should be paid. It has always been an honour to belong to the Forestry Council, and it is regarded as a sign of status. The sort of people who have been asked to serve on the council are people of status in the industry. When such an appointment becomes an office of profit, however, there is always a danger that it will become part of the NP gravy train and be a jobs-for-pals operation. [Interjections.] We hope this will not be so, and we ask the hon the Minister for an assurance that the members appointed to the council will continue to have the necessary expertise and be drawn from the ranks of independent people of status in the industry. I should like to stress the word “independent”.

They should privatise the gravy train.

The payment of members could, in a sense, inhibit the independent thinking that should characterise the council’s deliberations, and we hope that these provisions will not have any adverse effect on that independence. We have no great enthusiasm for clause 2, therefore, but we will not oppose the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not think anyone in this House can have any doubt about what this minor amendment to the Forestry Act involves because all the hon members who discussed it, referred very clearly to the amendment. I want to thank the hon members for Nigel, Durban Point and Bryanston for their support.

It is true that the Forestry Council is a very important council because it has to advise the Minister on many matters. If one examines section 50 of the principal Act, one will see there a long list of the council’s activities and of matters on which the council must advise the Minister. Although the hon member for Bryanston said it was not a democratic process, this amendment does give the Minister more leeway.

It is an improvement!

I think the hon member for Durban Point also meant that it probably gave the hon the Minister more leeway to appoint as chairman a very good man who was serving on the council but who was not an official.

The hon member for Durban Point referred to the question of research. This is in fact an important function of the council. I think it was in that connection that he mentioned it. I should like to recommend that, since he has these very interesting particulars at his disposal, he should raise them again when we come to the discussion of the Vote later this year. We should like to discuss these matters again.

†I want to thank the hon member for Bryanston for his support. As far as the remuneration of council members is concerned, I expect that it will be very modest. As a matter of fact, they have not asked for it.

*They have not asked for it, but there are people who are sometimes too courteous to ask.

†The intention of this provision is to bring the Forestry Council into line with all the other statutory boards.

*With that I once again want to thank all of those who supported the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, before we on this side express our support for the measure, I would nevertheless like to caution the hon the Minister that on 2 and 29 March we first want to land three reasonably large fish, with or without a permit.

We support the Bill, but on a few clauses we should like to furnish some comment, for consideration, with a view to the impossible improvement of those clauses.

Only a few?

Yes, definitely; only a few. [Interjections.]

In our view this legislation is fundamentally an improvement on the existing legal position as embodied in the Sea Fisheries Act, 1973.

The Diemont Commission’s report in regard to the allocation of quotas for the exploitation of living marine resources, and also the acceptance of the White Paper by the Government in 1987, aimed at the optimal utilisation of the conservation aspect, and aimed, too, at placing the South African living marine resources on a stable footing and also regulating them on this basis.

The control of the marine ecology can also, in terms of the legislation, be implemented very effectively in that the South African Navy, over and above its normal control functions along our coast, can take action against offenders in terms of its powers of inspection, entry, arrest and confiscation.

There are clear indications that a certain overutilisation of these resources has taken place over the past 40 years. Many large companies have come into being and have made large profits, but they have frequently exceeded their limits. For the fishing industry, with its complex composition, stretching over a wide field and embodying amongst other things deep-sea catches, inshore trawl-net crayfish catches, pelagic fish and many other smaller subdivisions, it has therefore become vital—a matter of urgency—for the utilisation of the limited marine resources to be implemented more effectively.

These resources are not inexhaustible, and the concept that the sea belongs to everyone has already given rise to over-exploitation, as some countries in the world have already discovered. It is very clear that both shortcomings and mistakes in administration and over-utilisation must once more be addressed. In our view that will, in fact, be the case if this Bill is passed.

It is therefore gratifying to know that the major portion of the industry which gave evidence before the Diemont Commission agreed that proper control over the resources was, in fact, essential.

State control of these important resources is now being regulated, in terms of this legislation, chiefly by the allocation of quotas by the Quota Board, and also by an advisory committee which can furnish the necessary advice to the Quota Board.

The CP wholeheartedly wants to associate itself, in particular, with the second portion of the legislation, dealing with the implementation of the administration of the Act. I am referring, in particular, to clause 3 (c), which involves the Natal Parks Board. The CP wants to express its gratitude for the exclusion of these national parks or lake areas bordering on the sea.

The Natal Parks Board has an exceptional record when it comes to conservation, one for which it is already world-renowned. We are aware of the conservation aspects of the areas falling under its jurisdiction, as well as their high calibre.

Clause 8(1), which deals with the advisory committee, provides that members of the advisory committee shall be appointed by the Minister if, in his opinion, they possess the necessary expertise in the relevant fields. The CP would like to propose that the concept “expertise” be defined more clearly by the insertion of the following words:

“Experts” covers a very wide spectrum, and a more specific definition could contribute to a balanced composition.

Part V deals with the Quota Board, and clause 17 (2) deals with the chairmanship. It is very clear that the chairmanship could be a so-called “hot seat”. The fact that the chairman of the relevant board shall be a judge, retired judge or senior advocate of the supreme court, a magistrate or a retired magistrate of at least 10 years’ experience is, to our way of thinking, a very good provision.

Clause 16, which provides that any person or a family member of such person with a direct or indirect interest, cannot serve on this board, we find to be a very good provision, in the right spirit. It can be asked, however, whether one should not get the industry on one’s side, too, particularly when it comes to the question of exploitation and conservation.

What the CP suggests, for consideration, is the possible appointment, to the Quota Board, of a retired official from the industry, one who has no further interests in the industry.

This way of thinking is also in line with that of a body which made a contribution during the drafting stage, ie the Housewives League of South Africa. All other aspects related to the allocation of quotas, such as their suspension, cancellation or reduction, and also mechanisms for the reconsideration of the requests of aggrieved parties, form part of this Bill, and we very gladly agree to the measure. Seen as a whole, in our opinion all facts involving quotas are being addressed.

In conclusion we would very sincerely like to thank the department and all bodies which assisted in drawing up the legislation for the thoroughness with which this was done. Not only have the conservation and exploitation aspects been addressed, but legal status has also been granted to conventions, treaties and agreements relating to sea fisheries, and it even incorporates the necessary measures for the desalination of seawater.

The fact that irresponsible exploiters will be called to book by stricter penalties is an honest endeavour to protect marine resources, to the benefit of all the inhabitants of South Africa. The Official Opposition therefore gladly supports this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Nigel has spoken. He adopted a very positive standpoint here on behalf of the Official Opposition, as they did on the standing committee. As the hon member has rightly indicated, we are dealing here with a new, improved compendium of regulations and legislation concerning the sea fisheries and related industries.

The majority of the provisions in the principle Act are again incorporated in the legislation under discussion. There are nevertheless also important new principles and new approaches which have been incorporated here. Clause 2, for example, makes provision for the Minister to determine policy, which he can amend by way of regulation. As the hon member has also said, effect is also being given, in this legislation, to the majority of the recommendations contained in the Diemont Report. The most important change in principle which is a direct result of the Diemont Report is specifically that of the Quota Board, which is now being established for the first time and which, in effect, means that decisions involving quotas are being taken out of the hands of the Minister and placed in the hands of an autonomous body. That is a principle we gladly support. What the hon member said about that could possibly have some merit. I think the hon the Minister will, in any event, lay down clear, broad principles and guidelines for the operation of the Quota Board.

This legislation was published for all to take note of and therefore came before the standing committee after a thorough consultation. Owing to the importance of this legislation, and also because of the sensitive nature of the legislation as far as certain of our population groups are concerned, the standing committee examined this whole matter with great circumspection and we heard further evidence from the Natal Parks Board and also approached other people and bodies, requesting them to make submissions to us. We could then unanimously submit this legislation to Parliament today.

As the hon member for Nigel indicated, however, there were certain amendments, for example to Clause 16, in which certain direct financial interests of members of the Quota Board have also been extended to cover indirect interests. We proposed that an experienced person, well-grounded in law, should be chairman of the Quota Board. The purpose of this was specifically to place the Quota Board above any suspicion and also to ensure that the general public, including participants in the industry, had confidence in what the Quota Board would be doing. The allocation of quotas in the fishing industry is, after all, still a very contentious matter. That was the contribution specifically made by the standing committee.

In connection with Clause 33 there is one specific aspect I should just like to raise with the hon the Minister. Clause 33 relates to the protection of fishing resources, and I should like to ask the hon the Minister to act in terms of this provision to protect our line-fish resources.

Several hon members, including myself and some other parties, have over the years expressed very great concern at the destruction of these resources. Steps were taken by the former Minister; in fact, in 1984, by way of a Press statement, he said:

And he did so too, but I think it was inadequate. I am asking the hon the Minister to start making an earnest endeavour in this regard. It is particularly in the Eastern Province, where the chokka fleet is active, that they actually concentrate on the chokka for a month or two, then focus their attention on line-fish activities.

What I propose is nothing new, but this is the first time it is being presented here. The hon the Minister should consider closing certain portions of the coast off completely to any commercial line-fishing and trawling activities. This would always still allow the amateur or recreational boat anglers to fish there, within the specified bag-limit provisions, but at least one would be able to crack down on the commercial line-fishing activities.

This is a matter which does, of course, have another side to it, and that involves what is now going to happen to the line fishermen in the industry. That is a problem which is not insoluble; there has been the withdrawal scheme on land, a scheme which has worked very well. There are a diversity of aspects one can implement to help these people. If matters continue as they are at present, the line fishermen will, in any event, not be in a position to make a living, because there are no more fish to catch.

In this specific case I am therefore asking the hon the Minister to consider closing off the coast from Eerste River up to Cape Recife. If it is too long a stretch of coast, then up to Cape St Francis, and from there up to Cape Recife. These coastlines can be alternated; this would specifically give the line-fish resources a chance to recover.

I think this is a very positive piece of legislation. The standing committee also regarded it as such. It is legislation which enables the hon the Minister to administer this very important industry in this country in a more effective manner. We on this side of the House support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, following the hon member for Uitenhage I must say that as chairman of the standing committee I thought he did a very good job indeed. He was a conscientious chairman, and we did have an opportunity in that standing committee of discussing the provisions of this Bill in fair depth. I would commend his suggestion that certain sections of the coastline be closed to commercial fishing. The protection of the resource is a most important matter. I believe that we, at this stage, still allow too much exploitation of some of our resources. One only has to go to any of the fish sections of the supermarkets to see the size of some of the stockfish that are now being sold to the public. I wonder if there is not still room for improvement in terms of the size of the meshes used to catch these fish. I know in the old days these fish used to be thrown away or used for fishmeal. They are now at least used for human consumption. I think one must consider this. I have been told that the size of the fish that are caught every year is slowly increasing. Nevertheless, we do exploit these very small stockfish. I do not believe this can be to the benefit of the resource. They should be allowed to grow.

As other speakers have said, this Bill follows the report of the Diemont Commission which inquired into the Allocation of Quotas for the Exploitation of Living Marine Resources on a Firm Basis. The Government’s White Paper of last year accepted the recommendations contained in the commission’s report. This Bill is directed towards implementing those recommendations.

It is an extremely important Bill for a number of reasons. The granting of quotas has in the past been the responsibility of the Minister himself. This is now to be handled by an impartial quota board which takes the responsibility, but only after the Minister has determined policy with regard to conservation of the resource and its optimal utilisation to the general benefit.

I want to talk about this. In terms of clause 2 a particularly onerous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Minister in determining policy. Marine resources are owned by all South Africans. The rights to exploit them are given by the State to those best able to harvest and then market these sea products to the greatest possible benefit of the public at large—I want to stress those words—to the greatest possible benefit of the public at large.

Unlike other rights—for example, mineral rights—the right to exploit marine resources is never sold but remains within the gift of the State acting on behalf of the people of South Africa, the public. The particular philosophy influencing the criteria governing the granting of quotas, is the tremendously important responsibility of the Minister and the Government. Why should one person be given the right to exploit a publicly owned resource while another is refused that right? Why should one give one man the right to catch fish and make a profit out of the selling of it while refusing the same right to others?

We are dealing with a very limited resource. Enormous damage has already been done by overfishing and overexploitation. The size of any quota granted has to be determined on a scientific basis which ensures that the resource is not destroyed. We all but destroyed certain of our resources. I have been reading about the shipment of contaminated tinned pilchards coming from Chile. One remembers with regret the old days when we were able to supply in our needs as far as pilchards were concerned. However, for years now we have had to import because of the damage done to the resource. Hopefully one of these days it will not happen anymore.

Quotas can only be granted to relatively few people. Why should one person be given a quota when another is refused? What should be the yardstick which guides one in giving preference to one applicant rather than to another? Firstly, it is very important that the choice of quota holders comes away from the political arena. This Bill attempts to do exactly that in that the Quota Board hopefully will be free of any political pressure. I think the Ministers who have controlled this matter in the past have always been subjected to political pressure. Some have yielded to that pressure, while other have stood firm.

Secondly, I believe that preference should be given to whomever can best exploit the resource to the greatest benefit of all South Africans. Fish is a very important source of protein which until recently was relatively cheap. Preference should be given to whomever can supply fish to the general public at a favourable price.

I smell something fishy!

The granting of a quota should not be regarded as a licence to print money and be seen as the granting of an opportunity to give shareholders in a venture tremendous profits. On the other hand, the fishing industry is highly capital intensive. Big money is involved in terms of trawlers, nets and all the paraphernalia that is needed in exploiting the resource. No quotaholder is going to venture capital unless he can get reasonable security of tenure with regard to his quota and an opportunity to get an adequate return on his investment. This is fair enough.

However, I believe that the most important consideration of all, in the final analysis, must be the ability to provide South Africans with fish at the lowest possible price. After all, South Africans own the resource themselves as I have said before. They cannot all go out and catch their own fish and therefore they give the right to a very limited number of concerns and individuals to catch fish on their behalf. When this Bill becomes law, as I am sure it will, I believe the hon the Minister is going to have to give the new Quota Board a moral and policy framework within which it must operate. That must be directed to giving the man in the street the benefit of fish at reasonable prices. I do not believe this is happening at present. Companies which have been given quotas have made bigger and bigger profits year by year to the detriment of the public at large. Fish which used to be a cheap protein source has escalated in price to the extent that fewer and fewer South Africans can afford to buy it. It is certainly no longer cheap.

The granting of crayfish quotas, for example, has been a licence to print money to the benefit of shareholders of a very limited number of companies. Very few South Africans can afford to buy a crayfish for the dinner table today, because prices obtained by marketing overseas are so high that the man in the street cannot compete.

Who benefits from these high prices? Obviously we need foreign currency and there is general benefit to the country in this respect, but the real benefit goes to the shareholders in the companies concerned. Why should that be so? Why should everybody not be able to enjoy what, after all, belongs to all of us? Even the individual fishermen themselves do not benefit to any great degree, because they are paid very little indeed in relation to the enormous prices realised. I remember going up to visit the West Coast in the company of other members of the Treurnicht Commission in years gone by when in relation to the enormous prices realised by crayfish overseas, the fishermen at that stage were being paid 20c per crayfish. That was all. Why should this be the case? Why should the man in the street— certainly on the Witwatersrand—have to pay R20 or R30 for a restaurant crayfish meal for the benefit of certain concerns who are lucky enough to have quotas?

Why is the individual South African heavily restricted in the number of crayfish that he is allowed to catch when commercial concerns are allowed to catch and export huge quantities every year? No wonder the authorities are faced with a huge poaching problem. South Africans resent having to pay enormous prices for enjoying something which belongs to them, so they continue to catch crayfish illicitly. This problem will remain as long as one cannot buy cheap crayfish.

Regrettably, a reasonable balance has not been found as to the percentage of the crayfish catch which must be sold on the local market in relation to export quantities. I believe the hon the Minister announced yesterday that approximately 90 tons is being reserved for the local market, but I actually do not believe that is enough.

We are reserving 900 tons.

I am sorry. They are reserving 900 tons. I do not believe that is enough, because to bring about a competitive situation one must put enough up for sale on the local South African market to bring about a great deal of competition so that the various concerns exploiting the resource will have to compete to get rid of that quota.

This hon the Minister’s predecessor, the late Mr John Wiley, took various steps which were an improvement in concept but need revision and extension. I hope that this hon Minister is going to be the man who will do this.

The practice of buying up crayfish destined for local consumption and then exporting it illegally has to be stopped. I know that cases like this have occurred when people who do not necessarily have anything to do with the industry at all have bought up local crayfish supplies and then exported them. I know of one case where the crates in which the crayfish was exported, were lined with white fish with the crayfish in the middle. Somehow this aspect has to be policed so that this illegal export does not take place.

Marketing mechanisms must be closely examined before quotas are granted to ensure that the average man can share in this nationally owned resource.

I have noticed—this is very disquieting indeed— that in recent years the same problem has manifested itself in the white fish industry. Last year, for example, specifically in the final quarter, it was almost impossible to buy kingklip in stores on the Witwatersrand. I realise that there are always seasonal shortages, but obviously this was not the whole story. Prices obtainable for exported white fish have escalated and I believe quota holders have been taking advantage of this fact and exporting more to the detriment of the South African consumer. Exports should not be allowed at all until the South African market has been completely satisfied at reasonable prices. It is not a bit of good supplying crayfish to the local market at such a high price that nobody can afford to buy them and then, when they lie unbought on the refrigerator shelves of the fish shops and supermarkets, claim that the local market is saturated. I am surprised that the public have put up with the situation for as long as they have.

Again, in the last three months of last year, plain ordinary stockfish was difficult to obtain. It is always possible to purchase fish which has been processed further—dipped in batter or breadcrumbs and sold ready-cooked, in a Mornay sauce—…

Do not make me hungry!

… but plain frozen fish is not always available.

Obviously this beneficiation process is to the advantage of the marketing organisation concerned, but some consumers cannot afford to pay additional amounts for this beneficiation process. It is obviously to the advantage of the fishing concerns with regard to profitability.

One of the criteria governing the granting of quotas should be the ability to supply adequate quantities of plain, fresh or frozen fish to consumers at a reasonable price.

I understand that the hon the Minister wants to finish off the Second Reading of this Bill, Sir, so although I have various other things to say, I will resume this discussion with the hon the Minister perhaps during some stage in the debate on the Vote of Environment Affairs. I do not know whether other speakers are going to participate in the debate today. If there are and if we are proceeding to another day, I would like to finish my speech, but if the hon the Minister would like me to sit down now, I will. It is up to the Whips. Well, it seems that I have to keep going.

I have said before that a tremendous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the hon the Minister in laying down a policy which will encompass these principles. I believe that we have been following too tentative a path and that we must follow a tougher line. If we did so, I believe that such products as perlemoen, which is virtually unknown to the average South African, would appear on South African tables. If one asks the average South African, even those who live on the Cape coast, whether he has ever had perlemoen, or when he last had perlemoen, one will find out that it is just not available.

What is perlemoen?

This hon member asks what perlemoen is. I do not blame him for asking.

Is it “waatlemoen”?

Money and profit should not be the only yardstick. Our people as a whole should be able to benefit from our resources. The quality of our lives, not forgetting the health of our population, could benefit, but it will require bold action by the Government and the hon the Minister when he lays down policy in terms of the Bill before us. It will probably require a considerable amount of moral courage but knowing this hon the Minister I think he has it and I have high hopes.

We in these benches welcome many of the provisions of the Bill. Control over marine resources should be more effective, particularly with the help of the South African Navy. Altogether, conservation measures to protect marine resources could operate more effectively as a result.

I must disagree with only one clause in the Bill, and that is clause 51 which limits the liability of any State employee or the Minister or the State itself with regard to any consequences of actions done “in good faith” in terms of the Act. I know this is similar to clauses in other legislation on the Statute Book, for example, limiting the liability of policemen, but we in this party have always believed that the State and its employees must be prepared to abide by and be responsible for the consequences of their actions and that they should not be granted a blanket indemnity of this nature.

The penalties which may be applied in terms of the Bill to people who contravene the law are, rightly, very severe indeed. We have no quarrel with the severity of these contraventions, provided that they are not used largely against the small offender while the big concerns go free. A man who poaches a few crayfish must of course be punished, but major damage to the resource is done by the larger concerns, and these defaulters must be very severely punished indeed, because of the serious consequences which may result to the viability and existence of our marine life.

We will support this Bill in the hope that the hon the Minister will exercise his powers to the benefit of the man in the street and not just for the benefit of shareholders of larger concerns.

Mr Chairman, I want to make the following rectification. Yesterday I said in my speech that I had received reports that the selfhelp houses at Boshof had collapsed. I should like to rectify that by stating that the houses that collapsed were the clay houses our people live in and not self-help scheme houses.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members who took part in the debate for the courteous way in which they did so. Not everyone thinks alike, which means that there will be differences and criticism, but in politics one must be prepared to give and take. I shall try to deal with every question or piece of criticism concerning my portfolio as comprehensively as possible.

The hon member for Macassar said the amount of R60 million did not comply with the requirements of my department. In the first place I want to make a rectification—the amount was R16,96 million. It was calculated according to the requirements of my department for the first four months, and therefore complies with those requirements.

The hon member referred to an official who allegedly said he would not listen to a Hottentot Minister. The hon member wanted to come and see me about that, and he is very welcome to do so. I really do not expect any of my officials to sink to that level of effrontery, but I shall be happy to hear what he has to say.

I looked up last year’s Hansard, but could not find the report in which I had supposedly said the hon member listened to gossip. I want to assure the hon member in this House that work is being done in respect of brand-new procedures for the allocation and control of transport tenders and services. All buses are investigated in loco before a tender is granted, for example. As far as overloaded buses are concerned, we expect the principals of schools to report such irregularities. My officials are drawing up a guide to principals in this connection.

The hon member referred to the “cinderellas”. They will receive attention from the Department of Education and Culture. In the same way the matters mentioned by the hon member, which fall outside my jurisdiction, will receive the attention of the relevant departments.

We are grateful to hear about the appreciation of the fence erected at a school.

†The hon member for Silvertown is certainly correct in blaming the Government for the financial state of the country as they have been in control for the last 40 years. We wish to assure the country, however, that we will do our share to put things right again. He expressed his gratitude for my doing my best and I wish to point out to him that a driver is only as good as his car allows him to be. The hon member and our other colleagues in this House have made it possible for me. Their support is appreciated.

The hon member for Border referred to the flood damage which is a general affair. I am sure the places qualifying as disaster areas will be included in the list and attended to by the committee appointed by the hon the State President. The acquisition of land is a matter for the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I am confident that the hon the Minister concerned will give this matter his attention if approached.

The hon member’s inquiry about the legal costs incurred by the Administration cannot at this stage be fully accounted for as the total liabilities have not been completely assessed due to circumstances beyond our control. Legal costs are only incurred when judgment is given against us, and to date amount to R12 063.

The detailed budgets for the erection of schools and housing will be found under the various programmes listed under the posts of each department. My budget only reflects the global allocations.

*The hon member for Robertson expressed the hope that the reference to a Hottentot Minister would soon be a thing of the past. The hon member can rest assured that I share this hope.

The hon member also made a fervent appeal for many houses, many facilities, many roads, and tarred roads. Once again I have to refer the hon member to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. That also applies to the hon member’s reference to employment creation funds.

As far as the hon member’s inquiries about parity are concerned, I can inform him that a recent announcement was made to the effect that this would become a reality on 1 March 1988.

I also want to thank the hon member for Mamre for his support. I am sure the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has taken cognisance of the aspects he addressed and will give these aspects the necessary attention.

The positive approach of the hon member for Britstown is appreciated. His view of the efficient conduct of the Ministers’ Council is proof that we have our people’s interests at heart at all times.

At the same time I want to praise the hon member for Ravensmead and the hon member for Southern Free State for their conduct and contributions. They will notice that I have covered the matters broached by them in my reply to earlier speakers, but I want to give them the assurance that their requests will also receive thorough consideration.

Like the hon member for Britstown, the hon member Mr Douw pointed out the many true achievements attained during the past three years of the existence of this House. That is conclusive proof that hard work is done and good achievements are attained.

With reference to his request concerning a transport scheme in the Western Transvaal, I advise the hon member to clarify the matter with the Department of Education in writing. That also applies to his request in connection with the appointment of night-watchmen. I want to point out, however, that there is a difference between security guards and night-watchmen, and what the hon member needs is night-watchmen.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, I realise that the hon the Minister will have to leave us shortly for his constituency because of the impending disaster in that area. I truly hope that the disaster can be averted. We sympathise with these people who are suffering right now.

Yesterday the hon member Mr Douw quoted a number of instances in which money was wisely spent—as it ought to be—on the erection of a number of school buildings. However, there are still a number of questions that I would like to discuss with the hon the Minister. I would like to know whether adequate funds have been allocated so that those problems could be eliminated.

Firstly I would like to refer to double sessions. Hon members will recall that in the course of last year’s session certain questions were tabled in order to find out at how many of our schools double sessions still took place. We were told that there were 133 in the Cape Province and only one in the Orange Free State. I would like to know whether adequate money has been allocated so that all double sessions can be eliminated at our schools, and if not, why not? It would appear that more than 80 of these schools that are having double sessions belong to the Dutch Reformed Church and various other churches. It also appears that there is a problem between the State and the church, because most of the schools where double sessions are being held are church schools. If there is a problem with the church, the State must iron it out through the hon the Minister; and if there is a problem with the State, the church must iron it out so that the suffering of our children who are attending these double sessions can be brought to an end.

I would also like to address the hon the Minister on the question of mobile units. It would appear that at most of our schools throughout the country, mobile units have become the norm instead of the exception. When the temperature reaches an unbearable degree in this House we adjourn. How much more unbearably hot must it not become in those mobile units on the platteland and in other areas during the summer months! Must our children continue to suffer? Are any plans being made to eliminate all the mobile units that still exist at some schools, or are we going to be saddled with mobile units for the rest of our lives? Mobile units are there to afford temporary relief. However, it would appear that they have now become a permanent institution. I would like the hon the Minister to give us the assurance that these mobile units will not be a permanent feature at our schools and that adequate funds will be made available to eliminate these mobile units as soon as possible.

The hon the Minister also owes us an explanation as to why certain computers were purchased in Israel when such computers were available elsewhere possibly even in this country. Why was there a problem with paying for these computers? Why were the standard rules and regulations laid down in regard to payments not applied in this instance? I think the hon the Minister owes the House an explanation as to why this was allowed to happen.

Allegations were made—I am selling them to the hon the Minister at the same price that I paid for them—that certain schools, especially in the Cape Peninsula, did not get textbooks and the ordinary exercise books.

*This happened because certain accounts were not paid. The hon the Minister should refute those allegations today and tell us why certain schools are alleging that they could not get books because the State had not paid the accounts.

†The other thing I should like to know from the hon the Minister is whether money has been set aside for the provision of the 5 400 classrooms which we still need to accommodate our children. He will recall that a question was tabled last year and that we were told that there was a shortage of 5 400 classrooms. When one looks at the interim budget with which we have been presented, and when one looks at the various budgets that have been presented in this House since its inception, it appears that the funds we have been receiving have been inadequate to eliminate the basic problems with which we have been confronted. Every effort must be made, therefore, to increase the money that must be spent on education and on the services provided by the other departments falling under the hon the Minister’s control.

I should also like to know from the hon the Minister whether his department cannot provide some relief for category A3 teachers. The hon the Minister will recall that the male teachers in category A3 are paid R3 600 per annum—which is a measly R300 per month. I do not think that any teacher in this day and age, whether he be qualified or unqualified, deserves to be paid a mere R300 per month. I should like him to tell us what we are going to do to bring relief to the 613 teachers in this category. Moreover, why is there still this difference between the male, who earns R3 600 per annum, and the female, who earns R2 703 per annum, which is a fixed salary? Furthermore, why are these people being paid this pittance? This also applies to teachers in categories A2, A2M and Al. They number as follows: Al—820; A2—1 471; A2M—893; and A3—613. The hon the Minister must bring relief to these people, because they are doing a valuable job. Had they not been doing a valuable job, they would have been replaced long ago with qualified teachers. In any case, there is a shortage of qualified teachers, and so relief must be brought to these people.

That brings to mind the question of overall planning by the department. In 1987 there were in excess of 10 000 students who wrote matric and applied to become teachers. Of these just over 7 000 were considered suitable to be trained as teachers, but only 2 000 were accepted into our training colleges. The Whites’ training colleges are empty, however. Not far away from here there is an entire college standing empty. Yet we had to turn away more than 5 000 students who wanted to become teachers. I am talking now about only one year. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether adequate planning has been done to ensure that our schools are catered for. I am not talking about only so-called Coloured schools, because there would be a great need for qualified teachers, as we would see if this regimentation as imposed by this Government were to be removed. These people could then be accommodated elsewhere.

What are we going to do? We now have matriculated “skollies” on the street corners.

Steady now!

I say we have matriculated “skollies” on the street corners, because we do not have work for them! [Interjections.]

Order! If hon members want to say something, they should do so in the proper manner. There is no point in their sitting in their benches and shouting. The hon member for Border may proceed.

Sir, I want to ask the hon member whether he is suggesting that our children who are unemployed are “skollies”?

Sir, it is a pity that the hon member understands neither Afrikaans nor English. [Interjections.] I said there were children who had matriculated who were “skollies”. [Interjections.]

Sir, …

Order! Examples are quite in order. The hon member merely said something. He did not mean anything by it. What I am trying to say is that what he said was not unparliamentary. The hon member for Border may proceed.

It would appear, Sir, that the question was asked before the answer was known…

Order! The hon member must either reply to the question or proceed with his speech.

Very well, Sir. Certain hon members here objected when I said that some of our matriculated children were “skollies”.

It is a fact, when it comes to job opportunities, that there is no work for them, because they have to compete on the open market with all the other children who have also passed matric. Perhaps hon members do not want to acknowledge this, but some of our children who have passed matric are “skollies” today.

Who makes them “skollies”?

Order! If the hon member for Bonteheuwel wants to refute the allegations of the hon member for Border, he should request an opportunity to speak.

There is a need because the technikons are clustered in Cape Town and some of the bigger cities. There is also a need to bring technical colleges to the platteland, because if these colleges were brought to the platteland, job opportunities would be created by the establishment of these technical colleges there. We have offered Brybach in the Border constituency to the State on several occasions as being an ideal place for a technikon which could also cater for the hinterland.

*The money allocated to the Department of Health Services and Welfare is by no means sufficient. I think the hon the Minister will agree with me. We need more money to ensure that health services are not extended on a racial basis, but in general so that the people on the platteland can also be served. Much still has to be done in the cities as well, especially in East London. Women with newborn babies are cared for on the streets by a mobile unit. It is a disgrace. Women are given injections in public …

That is a general affair.

Whether it is a general affair or not, it is still a matter of health and that is why I am raising the matter here. It is a complete and absolute disgrace for our females to lift their dresses in the streets to receive injections. This matter must be attended to and the problem eliminated.

It is still a general affair.

Sir, it would appear that when the going is good a matter is regarded as own affairs, but when the going gets tough, it becomes a general affair. It is a question of health!

We are responsible for health services.

I had hoped that the hon the Minister would keep quiet while I was speaking today, but now he is making a noise.

Order! If the hon the Minister wants to refute these allegations he should request a turn to speak. That is the correct and only way to do it. The hon member for Border may proceed.

Owing to the circumstances of today’s debate and the request of the hon the Minister, I shall not go into any more detail on the matter. I shall debate it with the hon the Minister on another occasion.

Order! The hon the Minister asked if he could leave early today because of the threatening danger of the floods in his constituency. I am exceedingly grateful that the hon member for Border has heeded this request.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Border and wish the hon the Minister everything of the best for the mammoth task that awaits him in his constituency.

In due course I want to link up with what the hon member for Border said, but first I want to express my dissatisfaction at the unexpected restrictions which the hon the Minister of Law and Order placed on certain organisations this morning, organisations which do not necessarily agree with the policy of the Government.

We find ourselves in a period of reform, which is a transitional period. It is never to anyone’s advantage if one’s political opponents are muzzled in some or other way. One thinks, in particular, of Black organisations which do not have a political platform from which to express their opinions. They consequently have no choice but to give vent to their feelings in some or other way. I think the negotiations in South Africa are complicated by the action taken by the Government; this truly makes South Africa a polecat in the eyes of the world.

I also think I am spot-on in congratulating the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs today on his announcement that there are going to be no tariff increases. I think the poor will benefit.

I also want to take the opportunity of thanking the hon the Minister of Finance for the amount voted for the Natal flood disaster. In the same breath, however, I also want to express my dissatisfaction at the amount of more than R80 million voted for the police and prisons. In a country where there is supposed to be freedom of speech, it is unnecessary continually to prevent people from saying what they want to say and locking them up. In my view that R80 million could be used far more profitably—particularly in our depressed communities.

The great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, mentioned three basic principles on which equal rights in society were based: Firstly, that a man is a free man; secondly, that he is a man of property; thirdly, that he is a man of character and ability. Unfortunately those rights are not ungrudgingly granted to one in South African society. We have, as it were, lapsed into a group phobia in which people are denied their rights.

In the set-up in which we find ourselves, we encounter the “own affairs” phenomenon. “Own affairs” has truly become a monster, Sir, because in terms of this system we cannot establish an equitable distribution among the respective groups. One cannot establish an equitable distribution that would satisfy everyone. What ought to be done in any country, when social or medical services are furnished, is to furnish those services to those who have a need for such services— regardless of race or colour.

During the Second Reading debate yesterday I referred to the five-year plan which the Government had instituted with a view to promoting growth in our economy. Today I want to ask, however, whether there is any prospect of real growth in the “own affairs” budgets. I should like to go into this question. If we look at education, we know that the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid is endeavouring to bring Black education on a par with other educational systems in South Africa within the next ten years. In order to reach this goal, South Africa will have to achieve a real growth rate of 12%. The total real growth rate in education as a whole in South Africa is 4,1% as far as general affairs are concerned. With that in mind I want to ask what the envisaged real growth is as far as the own affairs education of the House of Representatives is concerned.

I should like to quote from the speech of the hon the Leader of the Labour Party during our annual congress in Pretoria. He addressed the question of own affairs, and I quote:

Sir, I addressed that aspect yesterday. I pointed to progress made within our communities, but that should not be regarded as the alpha and omega in South Africa. There must be a purposeful effort to move away from that. I quote further:

Sir, what true words! Listening to the hon the Minister of Finance’s Additional Appropriation speech, one immediately sees that an additional amount of approximately R80 million has been voted for “own affairs”. I am not condemning the services furnished by own affairs administrations. My only objection relates to the triplication of expenses such as salaries. It is only necessary for one administration to be responsible for this.

The hon the Leader of the Labour Party continued, and I quote:

Sir, we do know, after all, that there are differences, but to base differences merely on skin colour is unacceptable. I quote further:

I spoke about education earlier on, but if one looks at health services and welfare, it is clear that according to the five-year plan a real growth rate of 6,5% in civil pensions is envisaged. I now ask: What is the real growth that is projected for social pensions over the five-year period? If one looks back at the past few years, one sees the increases which have specifically been welcomed by our communities. They were much lower than the inflation rate. I now ask myself too: Seen in the light of the announcement that there are not going to be salary increases this year, are there going to be any increases this year for our aged?

The question of basic health services is another aspect that really must be addressed.

I come from the rural areas. I know that over the years we have been grossly neglected. I want to thank the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for the fact that in time a fully-fledged clinic is to be established in Klerksdorp. In Klerksdorp—probably one of the biggest rural towns in South Africa—an ordinary house is still being used as a clinic. But surely the necessary services cannot be furnished under such circumstances. I want to go further, however. The local town council refuses point blank to furnish the necessary services, quite simply because they claim that health services are an “own affair”.

How much inconvenience are our aged, in particular, not subjected to in travelling from Alabama to the town to receive treatment there. If own affairs really do mean that our aged, and in particular the less well-to-do, must suffer hardships, this system must be summarily terminated.

This brings me to the question of the housing crisis in South Africa. From available information it appears that at present South Africa has a shortage of 800 000 dwelling units. This number merely reflects the present state of affairs and does not keep pace with our population growth. I ask myself whether the own affairs administrations will ever be able to make up this backlog. We heard, just the other day, that certain town and city councils were engaged in delaying tactics so that projects simply did not get off the ground. Along these lines we are never going to eliminate the backlog, and I really do want to appeal for an in-depth examination of “own affairs”. The question of housing, in particular, should be given attention, because a great need exists in our community.

Mr Chairman, permit me at the outset to congratulate the hon the Minister on this Part Appropriation. I also want to wish him everything of the best for when the floodwaters of the Orange River reach his constituency one of these days.

I want to dwell for a moment on what was said by the hon members for Border and Macassar who participated in the debate here yesterday and today. I actually want to congratulate them on the fine, positive contribution they made here on behalf of their party. [Interjections.] This fine, positive contribution on own affair services is in stark contrast to the verbal diarrhoea of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition during the no-confidence debate. [Interjections.] We really expected them to proceed in the same vein as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition …

We are a democratic party; we do not lie to ourselves … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to say “stop telling lies”?

Order! Would the hon member for Border please withdraw that.

I shall replace the word “lies” with “untruths”.

The hon member for Macassar hit their party’s dilemma squarely on the head. He said that they were a democratic party and that they decided for themselves. Mr Pieter Marais, the national chairman of the UDP told reporters that he did not make himself available for the leadership of a new party because he was still leader of the VKP. He has meanwhile made himself available, however, as national chairman of this party. [Interjections.] What a mix-up, and yet they pose as an alternative to the LP.

Go and help the people on George Island; the floods are coming. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I request your protection.

Order! I cannot permit a dialogue.

Sir, here the hon member for Border also cast an overall reflection on all matric pupils who were not employed at present. He called them skollies. Observing his conduct in the House, I think he is better qualified to be a skollie than many people out there.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is comparing my conduct with that of a skollie. I want him to withdraw it immediately.

I withdraw it, but there has just been a ruling that “skollie” is not unparliamentary.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member must withdraw the word unconditionally.

I withdraw it, but I just want to tell the hon member for Schauderville that he must keep his nose out of other people’s business. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Border then lodged a plea for non-racial schools and also objected to health services constituted on a racial basis. There I want to agree with him. In the same breath, however, he complained about our children now having to compete with everybody on the open market. Sir, if one is advocating a non-racial society, one must surely accept the full consequences of such a system. [Interjections.]

You do not understand my party’s policy.

The hon member said that our matric pupils have to compete on the open market with all other matric pupils. He contradicts himself. [Interjections.] On the one hand the hon member commits himself to multiracialism, but on the other he advocates the protection of Coloured matric pupils.

Now you are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want Hansard to be inspected immediately for the comment made by the hon member for Border.

I said “you are talking nonsense”; that was the comment. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, I can take the hon the Deputy Minister up on that challenge because that is what I said. However, if he begs to differ we can go to Hansard now. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Lockey may proceed.

Sir, those hon members can say nothing against me, because I have never been caught for drunken driving or in bed with another man’s wife. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Lockey will have to withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman, but I should like to request your protection.

He is making a habit of it.

Order! Hon members must stop making these interjections.

Mr Chairman, in lighter vein let me just say that you are so impartial that you would have been a very good chairman for the debate between Dr Andries Treurnicht and Mr F W de Klerk on 29 February. [Interjections.] That is a compliment, Sir, not a reflection on the Chair, in case they are again going to interpret it in that light.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is a reflection on the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Border can let me decide for myself. [Interjections.]

That is the ambivalence in the Official Opposition’s representations in this House. On the one hand they advocate own affairs services and, on the other, they denigrate the own affairs concept. In this ambivalence one finds that party’s dilemma. They would not like to be seen as supporters of own affairs …

Do you accept own affairs?

… but they make requests here for own affairs services for their voters. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Schauderville must restrain himself.

If certain efforts at socioeconomic upliftment are not made in their constituencies, they run the risk of losing their seats next year.

You do not even have a constituency.

Sir, I should like to repeat my challenge to the hon member for Border. In the past he has lost against the LP, and I should like to ask him to resign from his seat—then I will stand against him. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please not carry on like this.

It does not behove hon members of this House. The hon member may proceed.

I want to conclude by just telling the hon member for Schauderville that our party sees own affairs as an interim step for certain social and economic upliftment activities. We do not apologise for that fact. We do not try to denigrate it on the one hand and then, like you people, make requests for own affairs …

Order! The hon member must address the Chair.

I am addressing them through you, Sir.

The LP does not apologise for that fact. We also realise, however, that in the long run we have to work for a South Africa in which all people will be equal. We must also work towards a point at which services are rationalised so that there is one joint authority, for example, for education and welfare. We have made that clear in debates time and time again. Those hon members themselves were members of our caucus and know our party’s policy. In that respect we have nothing to apologise for or to hide.

That is the dilemma of the new opposition party. You know, Sir, the child mortality rate amongst opposition parties in this House is very high. [Interjections.]

We began with the PCP which never really made it, because within the first month it became the Democratic Workers Party. After the DWP we had the Democratic Alliance which never really got off the ground either. The hon member for Schauderville could not, by way of the alliance, qualify for an extra salary increase as leader of the opposition. Then they hastily had to form the Democratic Party. A year later the hon member for Reigerpark unseated him and now the hon member for Schauderville is without the extra allowances which a leader of the opposition gets. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition then again changed the party’s name to the UDP. Here five parties have already bitten the dust, and yet again a new party is emerging.

They are not here by the grace of their father-in-law; they are here as elected members.

Order! The hon member for Border must come to order. The hon member Mr Lockey may proceed.

If the hon member for Border wants to become personal, I shall become personal too. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I want to say that no one on this side of the House wears a Balaklava and has grown a moustache to disguise himself so that people cannot recognise him in the street.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member Mr Lockey challenged me, and I shall accept his challenge, provided he gives me the assurance that if he loses, his father-in-law will not nominate him again.

Order! That is not a point of order. [Interjections.]

But you yourself do not have a constituency. Why are you making such a noise here?

Why does he not have a constituency?

Order! Who is “he”? [Interjections.]

The honourable he. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall let that pass, because at least the “honourable” was there. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank all the hon members who expressed their concern for and sympathy with the people in my constituency who are being threatened by the rising waters of the Orange River.

The hon member for Border wanted to know whether adequate funds had been allocated so that double sessions could be reduced at our schools. I must point out that it is my duty, as Minister of the Budget, to make provision for the budgets as presented by the different departments.

The hon member for Border also wanted to know whether there were any problems, especially in regard to churches, and if this was because of double sessions at church schools. I must honestly say that we are paying very high rentals to some of the churches. Many of these churches do not have sufficient land on which to extend their buildings. This question should really have been directed at the Department of Education and Culture. However, I would like to set the hon member’s mind at ease in regard to the computers that were bought from Israel. At the time the computers were bought, no other firm was able to supply us with those particular computers.

*The hon member also referred to a school which had not received enough books. The Cape Provincial Administration supplies books to all our schools on an agency basis. These accounts are sent out and paid every month.

As regards the Category A teachers, I can tell the hon member that that is a matter which should be dealt with by the Department of Education and Culture. I believe the entire Ministers’ Council is concerned about the low salaries these people receive. This is something which is reviewed year after year, and we hope to put matters right in the near future.

†The hon member asked me why there was discrimination between males and females. That, unfortunately, is a principle applied throughout the country in respect of general affairs.

It should be changed.

We shall surely support the idea of total equality in all respects, however.

The hon member referred to an empty White training college quite close to Cape Town. I would point out, Sir, that we in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives do not believe in crossing a bridge before we come to it. We were working behind the scenes when we were informed by the media. That is how we learnt about what had happened with regard to that training college. We do not believe, however, that that is the end of the story.

Be careful, the bridge is being washed away.

It is still standing. [Interjections.]

†The other questions put by the hon member were directed at the other departments and I am not able to provide him with the answers to them.

*I wish to thank both the hon member Mr Douw and the hon member Mr Lockey. They both used up their time in touching on a variety of topics and indeed, they had every right to do so. I should like to exercise my right too, however, and refrain from replying to matters which do not concern me. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

1. (1) a select committee on a question of privilege be appointed to enquire into and report upon the correctness or otherwise of allegations made by the member for Stanger on 23 February in a speech in the House of Delegates to the effect that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council received a cheque from a building contractor during the election campaign in Tongaat; and
2. (2) the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and that Mr M Thaver be appointed chairman of the committee.

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has moved this motion in the absence of the hon member for Stanger. Nevertheless I believe that, were the hon member for Stanger present this afternoon, he would not oppose such a motion. This side of the House has no difficulty with opposing such a motion but I must bring to the notice of this House that, in view of information that I have in my possession relating to the cheque indicated by the hon member for Stanger, I would like to move as an amendment to the motion just proposed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council:

1. (2) it be a special instruction to the committee to investigate and report upon the circumstances surrounding the alleged receipt of a cheque for R10 000 by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, drawn by Citiplan, and to investigate and report upon the identity of this firm and its relation to the Chairman; and

Order! Will the hon member for Springfield please submit his amendment to the Table?

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that the hon member for Springfield has moved this as an amendment.

As an addendum.

As an addendum. I would suggest to the hon member for Springfield that he repeat that statement in his speech or that he repeat it outside this House if he has certain facts. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not an addendum. It is an amendment to the motion.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment, and in support of the amendment I should like to disclose to hon members of this House and to members of the Press …

Order! I have put the question and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has to reply.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Springfield may produce any document he wishes. No hon member on this side of the House received any money or any cheques from any developer or anyone else in connection with the Tongaat election.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! I regret to inform the hon member for Reservoir Hills that the debate is closed as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has replied.

May one not speak on the subject of the amendment?

Order! No.

Amendment put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz Bandulalla, M; Cader, D; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Padayachy, N S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Razak, A S) appeared on one side,

Amendment negatived.

Main Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank all hon members who participated in the debate. I would like to make the observation that most of the contributions to the debate were, in my opinion, removed from the subject matter of the Part Appropriation Bill. Nonetheless, it is convention and parliamentary tradition that speakers are permitted to speak on any subject they would like to air their views on when the Part Appropriation Bill is presented to Parliament.

I would like to begin with the contribution of my colleague, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I want to extend my appreciation to him for the able manner in which he handled some of the allegations made against the Ministers’ Council on various Votes.

I want to reiterate what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said in relation to the query raised in connection with the R49 million which hon members of the Opposition purported was not spent though estimated for in the previous Budget. The fact of the matter is that the amount of R49 million was allocated to the Housing Fund only during the last month of the 1988—87 financial year which the Auditor-General reported on. The impossibility of spending the total allocation on long-term projects such as housing in only one month must be appreciated. Although the amount of R49 million was allocated during a specific financial year, it has already been committed and will be expended during the coming financial years as the housing projects reach completion.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the Durban market and in particular to the Van Eyssen Committee. As a member who served on the Van Eyssen Committee I want to say that at the time of the burning down of the Indian market in Durban the Van Eyssen Committee was approached and its main function was the placing of displaced traders as a result of the Group Areas Act.

When the market burnt down, representations were made to the Minister at the time—it was Minister Marais Steyn—to get the Van Eyssen Committee to investigate the possibility of accommodation for the market stall holders. The committee looked at the circumstances prevailing at the time and said that when there were any projects in the Chatsworth area it would endeavour to accommodate some of the market stallholders in addition to placing the displaced traders.

The hon the Minister was also told that the SA Indian Council was making a case on the issue of the market and that the market should be in central Durban. As a result of this the hon the Minister and his officials visited Durban and I recall very vividly how he walked through the market at the time. One particular stallholder in the market used to sell a variety of birds. She spoke Afrikaans very well and Minister Marais Steyn was very accommodating towards her. He told her that it would be the responsibility of the Van Eyssen Committee to look into the possibility of the market being established in the proposed plaza in central Durban.

As a result of that the Executive Committee visited many areas at that time. The two areas that were proposed for the plaza and the market were the triangle between Warwick Avenue, the Old Dutch Road etc, and the other area was the Durban pavilion site. There was also a further site in Ordnance Road.

Up to that time I was a member of the financial committee but I had to relinquish the office I held on the Van Eyssen Committee and I was replaced by the late Dr A M Moolla. I want to assure this House that at no time were minutes of the Van Eyssen Committee given to the members. The recommendations that went forward to the then Minister was a communication between the Van Eyssen Committee and the Minister. I therefore thought that we needed to make it very clear but I do not want to detract from the main issue. The point was made repeatedly that the market should be in Durban Central.

I am not going to create a controversy around this issue but I do want to say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was an ordinary member on the SAIC at the time and I am aware of the role that he played with regard to having the market established in the central area in Durban.

I recall that there was a demonstration by the Indian Market Stallholders’ Association at the time. They walked from the then market up to our Government buildings on the Esplanade.

Furthermore, I want to say that the Minister’s representatives from the Department of Community Development, the Durban City Council, the SAIC and the Indian Market Stallholders’ Association were all represented on the Van Eyssen Committee. I hope that clears up the situation.

The Leader of the Official Opposition, as did so many other speakers, referred to the Group Areas Act and stated the effect it has had on the Indian community and people of colour in general. Having that at the back of our minds, we surely appreciate the difficulties and therefore I do not want to speak on the Group Areas Act in this debate. But I want to take up the matter raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition that there are certain areas where the community needs to be given services. The areas mentioned by him and reiterated by others in their contributions was health, welfare and housing. I think this has been requested repeatedly in this House since we came here and we on the Ministers’ Council are giving our attention to these necessities.

The hon member for Laudium quite rightly pointed out that this Appropriation Bill was a Bill to tide us over until the Main Appropriation Bill. He said something about the fact that over R46 million was being given in subsidies. I am not sure whether this is correct or incorrect, but if the hon member will give it to me in writing I shall look into the issue of what this R46 million represents.

The hon member for Laudium also spoke about raising the ceiling for subsidy purposes. When we have to work on a budget and the budget has its limitations then one needs to be very careful about raising the ceiling, because we need to reach as many people as possible who need this assistance rather than raising the ceiling and then serving only a few, or not reaching those people who need this assistance.

My colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, referred to the termination of teachers’ appointments at the end of the year and their reappointment in the first month of the following year. I think that has been amply clarified.

The hon member for Cavendish discussed the floods and the devastating effect they have had on the farmer, the Indian community and others. We share his concern. The Ministers’ Council has done everything possible to get the Cabinet to assist in this matter and it is common knowledge that in the Natal flood disaster it saw to the claims of the Indian farmers and others in Natal.

When the hon member for Cavendish speaks for the aspirations of the Black people, for their entry into the decision-making processes of this country, we are with him. Our aspirations, our intentions and our desires are the same. However, these matters should be laboured and belaboured when general affairs Ministers are present.

[Inaudible.]

We hope that that day will not be very long in coming.

The hon member Mr Thaver also referred to more money being made available for housing for our people. I think that since my colleague the hon the Minister of Housing took over this portfolio, he has proved that the acceleration of housing for our people is on the drawing board, and perhaps in the very near future there will be more pronouncements from the hon the Minister of Housing on what is being done.

The hon member for Springfield’s question regarding the R49 million has been answered. He spoke about R133 000 that was not spent in the Education Vote. This is the explanation I give the hon member for Springfield. The amount was included in the Estimates in respect of subsidising the hostel at M L Sultan Technikon. Under the new dispensation for technikons the M L Sultan Technikon was not entitled to a 100% subsidy. The amount was therefore suspended by central Treasury and is not a saving in respect of the Vote of my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture.

Mr Chairman, the simple question I should like to ask the hon the Minister is this: Since that amount of money had been saved, could it not have been spent on providing food for children at school?

This is not a saving. The central Treasury suspended this money, so it was never part of the Vote of my hon colleague, the Minister of Education and Culture. It did not come to me. It remained with the Treasury simply as a formula in relation to the subsidisation of universities and technikons. This has been agreed upon by my hon colleague and his colleagues in the other Houses.

I like the catch phrase of the hon member for Springfield when he says we have been shortchanged. I agree that the funds made available to us are not what we ourselves would like for the House of Delegates Administration.

However, we have to work within the confines of Treasury requirements, and Treasury—as you will have heard the hon the State President and, subsequently, the hon the Minister of Finance make abundantly clear—is working within a very stringent financial situation.

There is something I would like the hon member for Springfield to acknowledge with regard to the psychiatric wards. I, as the Minister of Health Services and Welfare at the time, did say that we were planning the psychiatric wards at the King George V hospital because of the convenience of these hospital wards. Subsequently, however, there has been a new development and my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has explained the situation.

I now turn to the hon member for Red Hill. We in this House are very much aware of our responsibilities and our public accountability. We are responsible to the public for anything in this House or in any other House, because the public’s taxes pay for the functioning of Parliament itself. However, I am not quite with the hon member for Red Hill when he says that he wrote to the hon the State President, and the hon the State President has written back to him. I should very much appreciate it if he would put that in writing to the Ministers’ Council, so that the Ministers’ Council may give attention to it.

The matter of the removal of the means test was quite rightly raised by the hon member for Red Hill. This was done by promulgation of regulations etc—and there is disparity. My colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has made the point that he has instructed his officials to look into this, and perhaps a memorandum may be forthcoming in this respect.

You must budget for it.

I cannot budget for it. The regulations are there and I have to confine myself to the regulations.

[Inaudible.]

My colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, has referred to the floods and the R15 million made available for agricultural purposes etc. I want to say for the information of my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, that the Natal Disaster Relief Committee is still functioning. The recent floods in Northern Natal will be covered by this committee. I am informed by my hon colleague that they are meeting this Friday morning.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell me whether, as the member of Parliament for that constituency, I was not entitled to know that the committee was in existence and whether we can obtain forms for application to the disaster fund subsequent to this? [Interjections.]

I think he is entitled to an answer, Mr Chairman. On the first day after the floods and so on, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council read out a statement from the State President. The hon member was not present. I think that should cover this matter. However, the hon the Deputy Minister will be receiving more information.

I wish to congratulate the hon member for Eastern Transvaal, since he has, as we call it, made a speech, but please do not get bowled over!

The hon member for Camperdown spoke with some emotion and concern …

With feeling and fervour!

… about the services in his area and other areas. With all due respect, one does not speak in the terms in which the hon member for Camperdown did. He had this unhappy way of saying: “Do you expect me to die before I can get my services in my area? Do you want a by-election before you provide services there?”

I say to the hon member for Camperdown that he should put that demand to the Ministers’ Council. Within reason the Ministers’ Council will provide those services, but any complaints should be lodged in writing with the Minister concerned.

The hon member for Stanger touched on subjects like the Group Areas Act and the recent events surrounding the acting principal at Reservoir Hills Extension No 4. My colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is attending to these matters. He has also covered the various matters raised by the hon members. Rather than being long-winded and having hon members accuse me of being repetitive, I should now like to end off with a few remarks. We have taken cognisance of the points made here and the Ministers’ Council will take appropriate action. Those hon members who have not been addressed personally will be receiving written replies from my office.

As regards the hon member for Bayview’s remarks concerning the R58 000 plus as being a misappropriation, I regard his terminology as a little harsh. The word misappropriation would point towards a deliberate action by the Administration. In this instance there never was a case of misappropriation. In the course of any large undertaking where one has this kind of activity there is always a built-in safeguard for such deficiencies or whatever one would call them. However, the hon member for Bayview had an opportunity to speak on this matter at last year’s debate. The matter he has now addressed refers to 1985-86, but the explanation is very simple. There are thefts and burglaries at schools and offices are broken into. Because of vandalism we need to look after our buildings as far as repairs are concerned. This is where the term miscellaneous is used. This explanation was also given to the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr Chairman, I should like to pose a question to the hon the Minister. My raising that matter was done to implore the hon the Minister to see to it that his department takes adequate measures.

Order! What is the hon member’s question?

Mr Chairman, was that not my question to the hon the Minister, that he should take adequate measures so that no repetition takes place?

That is obviously exactly what his department is doing.

Thank you. I would also like to thank all the hon members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, it was only yesterday that we heard from the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs, who drew a comparison between the allocations of funds to the three Houses, and I think he took very strong exception to them. He did some arithmetic whilst seated there. That clearly indicates that the majority party in this House certainly does not have the clout one would have expected them to have. I do not think they have been pressuring the central Treasury for enough money. I say this with a deep sense of conviction. We have heard speaker after speaker in this very House—even hon members from the opposite side of the House—identify areas that have been neglected and areas that have to be attended to. This has been an on-going process, not for a matter of days, but for the past three and a half years, and I should like to know something.

We heard earlier on from the hon the Minister of the Budget that there are certain regulations in force, and that one has to adhere to those regulations. [Interjections.] What I should like to know, is what line of action the hon the Minister is taking to amend those regulations. Are we simply going to say that there are certain regulations that we have to adhere to and that these are causing certain restrictions? I feel that they have a commitment to the community to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that these regulations which prevail at present are amended forthwith.

For far too long we have been hearing about areas of deficiency. Take social welfare and pensions, for example. I want to state categorically that there are several people in Chatsworth who are disabled. They are positively disabled. There are some people who have been collecting a disability grant for five years and all of a sudden their disability grants have been curtailed. For what reason? I should like to know whether it is the intention of the department to take away money from a deserving person simply to reduce the shortfall and to bring about a balance in respect of the other areas of deficiency. I think this is a very sorry state of affairs.

Let us take an objective look at the situation with regard to our people. We have been suffering for far too long. Take the areas of Chatsworth, Phoenix and Merebank, for example. I do not know whether the hon Ministers have taken the initiative of driving through those areas to see what conditions are like there. I do not know whether the hon the Minister of the Budget has gone there to see what the conditions are like.

You do not know; that is a fact! [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members that what we see, we bring with us into this forum. We could talk about other areas.

I want to tell hon members about a high school in Chatsworth that is using a disused toilet facility for the purpose of music classes, etc. Where else does one come across things like this? [Interjections.] I have documentary proof. There is a lack of space at the high school and children have to stand in the corridors and on the verandah simply because there is no legroom, no space, in that particular area. I may be incorrectly in calling it a toilet. It could be any other facility … [Interjections.] … but not a classroom.

Near the toilet.

Yes, it is probably adjoining a toilet.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he would have any qualms about naming the school concerned?

Mr Chairman, that is irrelevant. [Interjections.] I am trying to point out a condition that is prevailing at a particular school at the moment. There may be several other schools that I am not aware of. I am merely trying to highlight a particular school that I know of where the matter has been brought to my notice. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately, I have limited time. Perhaps I shall elaborate on this when each Ministry’s Vote comes up for discussion. I hope that that will be the ideal time for us to highlight these deficiencies.

Mr Chairman, I want to highlight a few problems in my constituency, and especially in Palm Ridge. Palm Ridge now falls in the constituency of Eastern Transvaal, to which the hon member Mr Akoob has recently been elected.

There are about 3 000 people living in Palm Ridge. Their problem is that they have no cemetery. Although land is made available, there are no funds to develop this land. In the 1986-87 Budget we received an amount of R800 000 for a community hall and a library, but when tenders were requested by the Germiston City Council, the lowest tender was for R1,3 million. We therefore need about R500 000 more. This community is without a community hall or a cemetery.

I would like to place on record that I have at no time forced the Indian community to Palm Ridge. This was done by the Government in terms of the Group Areas Act. The hon member for Actonville at that time was the chairman of the Indian Advisory Committee, of which I was a member. He can vouch for the fact that we were forced out of Germiston to Palm Ridge under duress. They wanted to remove all Indians from Germiston to Actonville. I want to tell my critics that they must not blame Mr Collakoppen for forcing the Indian community into Palm Ridge. It was done by the Group Areas Act.

Therefore I make an appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget that he will demand from the central Government that money be made available for the community of Palm Ridge. It is not of their making; it is the policy of the Government that has moved these people to Palm Ridge.

Mr Chairman, during the course of yesterday’s debate, the hon member for Stanger drew the attention of the House to a certain cheque which was handed to some official of the NPP during the election in Tongaat. The point he was making …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The matter raised by the hon member for Springfield will be investigated by the select committee for which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has called, and which has been approved by this House. I submit that the hon member should not be delving in that matter now.

Order! I request the hon member for Springfield not to refer to that matter.

Mr Chairman, I shall not refer to the cheque that the hon …

Order! I order the hon member not to refer to that anymore, even by way of explanation.

Mr Chairman, I accept your ruling and I give you my word that I shall not refer to the cheque that that hon member talked about.

Mr Chairman, I shall talk about a cheque for an amount of R10 000 that was deposited into the account of the NPP on 26 November 1987 by Citiplan. I raise this because I know that Citiplan is a housing development company and that this firm is associated with a company called Procor which is also involved with housing, and I furthermore know that it was the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who indicated in a news report that the proprietor of this particular firm was responsible for drawing up certain plans for a house which he proposed to build in Chatsworth.

I believe, as a matter of policy, that it is irregular for any political party to accept large donations of this kind from any company with which that administration is involved in developing houses.

It is susceptible to abuse and I would like to suggest to the hon the Minister concerned that he should desist in future. On the other hand the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should explain to this House this afternoon for exactly what reason this particular cheque was given to the majority party of this House.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to play an old record in this House. The hon member for Springfield was the treasurer of a political party or his personal postbox was used as the official postbox of the Solidarity Party. I want to add that the House of Delegates does not deal with Procor and we are not aware of Citiplan being associated with any development company. This party did not receive any donations—I am placing this on record—from any contractors or any development company. The hon member for Springfield is entitled to his interpretations but I want to say to him that we should play open cards. He should give us the donation list of Solidarity from the time when he was associated with it. I have stated in this House that there was a rumour that many people posted cheques to Solidarity at the time. [Interjections.] It was believed that the hon member for Springfield had the key to the postbox.

We did not allocate sites.

This side of the House does not allocate sites to people on the basis of their donations. Not a single example of this can be produced. [Interjections.] The hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Reservoir Hills find spooks around them. If they reside in a spooky area they will continue to be haunted by spooks.

Tell us about Citiplan.

I asked the hon member for Merebank to prove that anybody who donated any money to the NPP received anything in return for their donation.

Prove it!

I throw the ball back into his court. [Interjections.] Citiplan does not draw any plans for me and I want to have that placed on record.

We had a very good discussion yesterday. The hon member for Camperdown drew a comparison between Transvaal and Natal insofar as housing development was concerned. The hon member did not indicate to this House that he contacted me personally in my capacity as the Minister of Housing and that I had responded positively to him. I gave the hon member for Camperdown a date on which he could visit me and have lengthy discussions with the officials of my department in order to find out how he could get housing projects off the ground in his constituency. However, he was not available on that date.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister of Housing in this case to explain to hon members how the mere acknowledgement of a letter of requisition to attend to housing matters in a constituency can be an invitation. It was nothing more than the acknowledgement of my letter and nothing more followed after that.

After the acknowledgement of the receipt of the letter my private secretary contacted the hon member for Camperdown telephonically and suggested a date but the hon member was not available.

Subsequently I personally telephoned the hon member for Camperdown and indicated that in spite of the fact that circumstances in the Camperdown area had changed, we would seriously examine his request. I indicated to the hon member for Camperdown that that section of Welbedacht which falls within his constituency is receiving our attention to such an extent that we have asked the city council to re-examine their professional report which had found that that area is not suitable for housing.

I also indicated in a debate last year with regard to that section of Welbedacht which falls under the control of the Development and Services Board that that particular institution had engaged consultants and they indicated that it is possible for us to provide 3 000 housing units. We have given that a very high priority and it is in the pipeline.

Of course in certain areas we are at the beck and call of municipalities. Our housing programme is dependent on how fast or how slow certain municipalities move. Yesterday we had two examples: One was Howick and the other was Ladysmith. There is a difference between these two towns. In Howick the municipality did not do anything and the local affairs committee there was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the Howick municipality would not be able to undertake housing projects. At the request of the Howick Indian Local Affairs Committee our administration and the Housing Development Board took that responsibility.

As far as Ladysmith is concerned, there is a difference. The difference is that I received an official request from the Ladysmith LAC. Our administration received a request, after I had met with the Ladysmith LAC that in spite of the fact that they were having problems with the Ladysmith municipality they wanted to be given a chance to sort out the differences with the municipality. I think that was a correct request. It was a fair request. I confirmed that this morning with the chairman and a member of the Ladysmith Indian. So there was no need for us to step in and do in Ladysmith what we had done in Howick, because although it had taken almost four months to sort out these differences I have now been officially informed that they have been sorted out.

Tonight there is a meeting of the Ladysmith municipality and the green light will be given for them to go out and tender in respect of the provision of homes. The Housing Development Board has given their approval to the allocation of funds for this.

However, if the Ladysmith LAC came to us like the Howick LAC and suggested that there was no chance of a reconciliation with the Ladysmith municipality then, as sure as the night follows the day, we would have done what we had done in Howick.

In addition, at my request our administration is looking beyond what is being planned in Ladysmith and I want to say that there is an area called Ntombi’s Camp. We enquired of the Ladysmith municipality what they intended doing. They have already at the request of our administration made an application to the provincial administration for a need and desirability certificate for the provision of 500 additional homes in that area called Ntombi’s Camp which is owned by the Ladysmith municipality.

Then we have certain people who are regarded as exploiters who had already acquired and took an option on land earmarked by the Indian community and identified by our administration— this land is also called Ntombi’s Camp, but it is privately owned—to construct their own style housing.

This may or may not have an effect on what we are providing in partnership with the Ladysmith municipality. We took the necessary steps with the Ministry of Constitutional Development and Planning to halt the Group Areas proclamation so as to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards when this private enterprise undertakes its own project. This is to protect the community and to ensure that our scheme in partnership with the Ladysmith municipality is not prejudiced.

There is a difference between Natal and Transvaal. As far as Natal is concerned I can give the hon member for Camperdown statistics. In Shallcross, Dassenhoek and Marianhill we had extensive discussions with the Pinetown municipality—the hon member for Marianhill can confirm that—and we are in a very advanced stage in respect of getting the groundwork done for the provision of housing. I want to say, for the benefit of the hon member for Camperdown if he did not hear us announce this in this Chamber: We have found land on the western side of Chatsworth so we are able to provide an additional six to seven thousand housing units. I also indicated in this debate that we are looking for land in the northern sector of Durban.

Let us take the area of Newlands West. We had a crisis last Thursday. It seems as if someone is simply orchestrating activities. They want to build shacks on land belonging to our administration, on the land on which we were about to prepare our infrastructure in Newlands West. We have received reports that some people have already dug out the foundations for the construction of shacks. This is a very urgent matter. We did not want the removal of the Blacks but we are now making an arrangement with two authorities dealing with Black housing—the Natal Provincial Administration and the Department of Development Aid—so that we can exchange land. Land belonging to us will be exchanged so that those shack-dwellers will not be removed from the area, and will be provided with adequate housing. What is strange, however, is that I received a request from a residents’ association that is radical. It is against the House of Delegates and against the system, and pro-UDF, but they are requesting our administration to remove the Blacks from the area. We do not want the Blacks to be removed. We want to ensure that they are given sufficient land for their housing.

While we are doing this, however, we ourselves have undertaken the responsibility on a very urgent basis to develop community area 5 in Newlands where we are going to provide, in addition to the present figure of 500, 1 000 low-cost housing units. I received urgent representations from the Urban Foundation. We are financing their construction of 1 400 low-cost housing units in a place called Hillgrove. The problem in the Durban metropolitan area is that private enterprise and even certain utility companies are not catering for the low-income group, while 80% of those on the waiting list belong to the income category of below R1 000.

A great deal has been said about Isipingo. Isipingo has been squeezed. Malukazi is just like Northdene and Motala’s Farm where there are landowners and tenants at will. If one were to expropriate that land, one would have to pay market value. One would not be able even to assist the people one wanted to assist there. However, I have extended an invitation to the Urban Foundation to examine Malukazi very seriously to see what role it can play in upgrading the area. This week the Housing Development Board rejected an application from the Isipingo Municipality with my full support. I had the chairman in my office the other day and I supported the Housing Development Board in its desire to sell land belonging to it financed by the State at very high prices. The cost of the land is R180 000 and they want to sell it for R450 000 for housing for people who are classified as first-time home buyers. We will be able to provide 200 low-cost housing units there.

An application has also been made to build houses on a flood plain. We cannot take that risk but I can assure the hon member for Camperdown that in Natal we have sufficient infrastructures, as I said yesterday, from Phoenix, Pinetown, Marianhill and even Chatsworth to provide 20 000 housing units. We have the land; our problem is the price.

The hon member for Havenside indicated that in respect of the Budget allocations, our position, compared with that of the House of Representatives had remained the same for the past three years. I believe that at one time in the last three years the leader of his political party Solidarity was also the Minister of the Budget. Thus, if this is an indictment of this side, it is also an indictment of his leader. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I believe that at one stage, in response to complaints by his constituents, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture—whose constituency is Clare Estate, where the people were very concerned about the development of shacks— looked into that matter.

I do not believe that the hon the Minister objected to Black people having shacks. He objected to shacks, whether the shacks are built by Blacks, Coloureds, Indians or whatever. We must get away from this apartheid style of thinking.

Newlands West has been mentioned. I first went to Newlands West in 1949. At that time Black and Indian South Africans were living cheek by jowl. There used to be a fair amount of difficulty on some days, but no Indian was ever molested by a Black. They lived perfectly happily on land owned by commercial interests; land owned by Natal Estates; land owned by Naransamy Moodley—they lived perfectly happily there. I see no reason why we should become slaves of the Group Areas Act. That is the trouble—it is the Group Areas Act which is being supported by certain sections—not all sections—but certain persons in the “National Party’s People’’. It is they who are really supporting the Group Areas Act and making it work.

There is not much time left, but I want to comment on what I heard from the hon the Minister of the Budget today. He was reasonable, and we obviously respond with due reasonableness to a reasonable attitude exhibited by the hon the Minister. He dealt with the question of the market. I want to say that it is essential that the market get off the ground—that it be rebuilt—because the people, the property owners, the businessmen in Brooke Street, the lower end of Victoria Street, Queen Street and Prince Edward Street, have also been suffering since the market was demolished.

However, we should not forget that next to the so-called Indian top market there was the Ematsheni. In the Ematsheni there were large numbers of South African traders—they were Blacks who were small traders. An area must be found for them, and in addition it would be stupid for anyone to say that only the Indian stallholders must be accommodated. The Black stallholders who lost out must also be accommodated. I believe that everything possible should be done. Obviously, all those who are there should be assisted and given a reasonable opportunity to tender for the property.

However, it would be a crime of the first order were any money which should be put into housing or education, to be sterilised by buying up that site from the Durban City Council. The House of Delegates should not use money to buy up that site. Let the stallholders or those who finance them—the entrepreneurs—find their own finance for it. We must not commit the same crime as was committed in regard to the Checkers land, which was acquired by the House of Delegates from the Durban City Council. It is sterile; that money has been sterilised. In the meantime, what is happening? The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare tells us that there is insufficient money to pay proper pensions to blind and disabled persons! They get racially discriminatory grants simply because it is alleged that there is no money. However, money was found to purchase the Odeon Cinema; money was found to purchase the Checkers site; money was found to take over petrol service station sites from the Durban City Council, and why? The House of Delegates is not supposed to be a manipulator or a property developer. Property developers do this kind of thing to make a profit—what they call duktah—to get something in return.

That kind of thing must not be done. What should be done with immediate effect is that that money should be utilised to increase the pensions and in addition, not to deny pensions. The hon the Minister of the Budget will be horrified when I give him a certain document—I shall do so next week since I am getting additional information. An old woman of 80, who is sickly, had her pension cut off about five months ago.

The Department of Health Services and Welfare has not yet reinstated her pension. I am sure that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will also be horrified. Knowing that he is a reasonable and compassionate man, I am sure that he will see to it that this pension is restored retrospectively from the date on which it was cut off. When people are so busily engaged in grand plans involving the buying, re-allocating and selling of property, suspicions will arise, more particularly so when the poor are so disgracefully neglected by the Administration. My time has just about expired, but I shall deal with this more fully when the respective hon Ministers present their own budgets.

Mr Chairman, I have listened very attentively to my hon colleague who has just sat down. I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question as regards the case of the Durban City Council and the market. When that market burnt down, what efforts were made by the central Government to help those stallholders? It is a fact that whatever form of relief is granted, it always comes from the NP in the House of Assembly. Such large-scale assistance will never originate from either the House of Delegates or Representatives. I would term the market incident as a disaster, because quite a number of people lost their livelihood through it. The responsibility of the rebuilding of that market should be the State’s and not the House of Delegates’. I have often mentioned in this House that whenever there is a disaster or a drought involving, for instance, the White maize farmers, all of a sudden funds are found to meet the circumstances. Invariably the White man will be helped, but the non-White will not. Today we heard about Black housing which is not being upgraded, because the money cannot be found by the Central Government. Look at what the Blacks in Khayelitsha have to live in. Would hon members call those little matchboxes, houses? I do not. I strongly believe that our hon the Minister should now demand that, since we are represented in Parliament, we should be empowered to legislate as the White man has done up to now. [Interjections.] No, I am very sorry but I disagree. The hon member for Camperdown recently brought a private Bill before the House. [Interjections.] It does not matter whether it was a general affairs or own affairs Bill. The fact is that he produced it in Parliament and nothing has been done about it. Not a thing. Chambers were built here at Parliament. We have just come from a Chamber which was especially built to accommodate all three Houses together. Why do we not use it? We should get up there and speak on behalf of everybody and everyone. We should do that. [Interjections.] We should use the chambers to make our demands. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I want to mention that there are various chambers, in case some of my hon colleagues do not understand that one can use them.

Order! What statement did the hon member for Bayview make just now?

Mr Chairman, the hon member said we would use the chamber, and I asked: “What chamber?” [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members were reminded very forcefully by Mr Speaker yesterday about references to Parliament. May I draw the attention of hon members to that again in case some of them were not present yesterday. The words “three-legged horse” with reference to Parliament will not be allowed. Parliament is Parliament and should be referred to as such. Therefore, those hon members who were not present yesterday must please remember that. The hon member for Lenasia East may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I draw your attention to the fact that I very clearly heard the hon the Minister of the Budget make a remark when the hon member for Lenasia East was talking about a chamber. He asked: “Which chamber?” [Interjections.] Obviously he knows which chamber. It is a Chamber of Parliament. Therefore I do not think that those words were appropriate at this stage to a Chamber of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order! May I also draw the attention of the hon the Minister of the Budget to the fact that the word “chamber” can sometimes be used in a different sense. Therefore, we have to be careful, especially when we are referring to parliamentary institutions. Hon members can get away with referring to this Chamber or that Chamber of Parliament. I cannot say what the intention of the hon members concerned was. However, I appeal to all hon members kindly to refrain from using such words, which can have different interpretations. Please let us uphold the dignity of Parliament. The hon member for Lenasia East may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. A poet from the East once asked: “In the midst of summer and with all the rain, why is your garden so dry?” I interpret that as meaning that we are in a position to do things and yet we are unable to do them. As far as I am concerned, we should make our demands on the central Government. We, too, should have the right to legislate, as they do, and to initiate Bills just as the White man does, because to this very day I do not think that a Bill introduced by a non-White person has ever been passed in the history of the South African Parliament. That has not happened either in the original House of Assembly or in this tricameral Parliament. I therefore think the time has arrived to do this. It is senseless to fool oneself. We should now take the initiative and start doing things in a different manner. We have already learnt our lesson as to what can and cannot be done.

It is useless my shouting to the hon the Minister now that he should obtain more money. He can blow his bugle until the cows come home but we will not receive any extra money from the central Government. We should be able to do it ourselves.

How?

What are we here for? We must devise a strategy.

We worked to get here; we must now work to get further. It is senseless sitting in the back and asking: “How?” Some of us have to do it. We have to get together and work out means of doing things. We have to put our heads together. We have so many heads here, that sometimes one cannot count them, because some are here and some are not. Even if they are here, some heads cannot be counted.

You must tell the hon the Minister to go and do some work.

No, telling only the hon the Minister does not mean anything. There are rules and regulations by which we have to abide. Those are the things we have to change. We have to change the rules and regulations by which we are now abiding. I am not even going to talk to the hon the Minister or ask him anything, because it is senseless. If the hon the Minister cannot penetrate the White side of Parliament in order to get things done, what good is it that I stand here and ask him questions? We, all of us together, must work to try and change the system.

Mr Chairman, I always notice one thing in this House, namely that when anybody stands up to speak in this House the hon members for Reservoir Hills and Springfield … [Interjections.] Those two hon gentlemen, when anyone gets up to speak in this House, try and talk among themselves and laugh.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Durban Bay referred to hon members as “gentlemen”.

Order! The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned finding money for the buying of garages. I do not know why this sort of thing occurs in this House from time to time. It would be so simple and easy, if any such thing happened, to bring forward proof, so that the matter could be settled. However, I believe to keep on harping on things in this House is very unfair. I think we are thereby making a joke of ourselves in the eyes of the public. [Interjections.] I will come back to this matter.

I now want to talk about the market. The Indian market in Victoria Street was so important, not only to those stallholders, but to the entire trade area around the market. It was not only an attraction for the people of South Africa, but tourists from all over the world regarded it as one of the places in Durban they have to visit. One could buy various commodities and goods there cheaply, things which were not available in White areas. I believe such a market should be brought back into the centre of the city, so that these benefits can be enjoyed again.

It has been mentioned in this House that we must get the private entrepreneurs, the market stallholders, to build the market. That is all very well, and seemingly there is no harm in it, but the danger exists that if we allow this, the poor stallholder will suffer and will not benefit from it, because there will be stronger people in the consortium who will exploit the small businessman …

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that the time for the debate has expired. The hon the Minister will now reply.

Mr Chairman, owing to the time factor I need to be very brief. I want to thank the various hon members who contributed to the Third Reading debate. The points relating to the Votes of the different hon Ministers were well made.

I want to refer very briefly to the hon member for Reservoir Hills with regard to the market. We on this side of the House have stated publicly that if the market or plaza project is implemented it will not be for sole occupation by members of the Indian community. [Interjections.] We took cognisance of the fact that Blacks have traded at the market in the past. I know that some of them were bread-sellers.

We want to avoid building it ourselves.

Yes. As long as it will be possible the House of Delegates will refrain from building the market itself.

I thank the hon the Minister.

I want to refer to the speech of the hon member for Havenside. If he wants to use rhetoric and if he seeks sensation he should not be speaking in this Chamber. If there was a toilet I would have asked him to pull the chain. [Interjections.]

I want to thank all hon members for their contributions. I just want to refer briefly to the matter of the 80-year-old woman whose pension has been cut off. If the matter had been brought before the hon the Minister or his department it would have received attention. When I had the portfolio of my hon colleague I found that if a person of 80, 90 or even 100 owned a property worth over R28 000, that was disposed as an inheritance …

Provided he or she is not White.

In the case of Whites it is R40 000 and in the case of people of colour it is R28 000. If the value of the property exceeds R28 000 the pension is automatically stopped.

Does that apply to Whites as well? Whites have properties worth R50 000. Why do you tolerate this racialism? [Interjections.]

No, it is a general Act.

It is own affairs.

No, it is not own affairs. The legislation is general affairs. My colleague the hon the Minister is preparing a memorandum in this regard.

We have improved it.

Yes, since the House of Delegates came into being we have improved the annual increase.

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

No, I do not have time for any more questions.

I want to thank hon members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity of making a statement. I want to place on record the congratulations of our Administration and the Ministers’ Council on the promotion of a stalwart in our Administration by the name of Mr S Pather to the ranks of Deputy Director. I think not only the entire Administration but all Indian members in the public sector really appreciate the services that Mr S Pather has rendered.

He commenced employment in February 1955 as the Protector of Indian Immigrants, then administered by the Department of Interior. He worked in all sections of the department until February 1969 when he was appointed the first Indian Registrar of the Springfield College of Education. In 1972 he was the first Indian to be appointed in the role-playing post of the Clerk of the SA Indian Council. In his new rank as Deputy Director he will still be retained as the Administrative Secretary in the Office of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of those of us on this side of the House I want to associate myself with the congratulations and sentiments expressed by the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council.

Mr Chairman, we of the PRP also join in congratulating Mr S Pather. His promotion was long overdue. We are only puzzled as to why the Minister in charge of that department did not make the announcement, but that is their internal affair. We welcome the appointment.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.