as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 3 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 20 May 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Eighth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 20 May 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

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

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

This Bill is probably one of the most important which this House will discuss this session and I want to commence by saying that there is far more to this Bill than the mere repeal of a number of influx control measures. This Bill gives effect to the Government’s philosophy about the elimination of racial discrimination and the extension of equal opportunities to all South Africans.

The State President has expressed this philosophy on different occasions. On the 15th of May he said, inter alia, that discrimination implying selection for unfavourable treatment or prejudicial action on the basis of race, cultural affiliation or religious conviction will be eliminated.

On 31 January 1986 he also said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 13):

Philosophically speaking this Bill brings us nearer to the State President’s ideal. It is therefore a great moment in the history of South Africa.

Against the background of our history we are facing a new epoch in the development of our country and it is therefore fitting that we pause to reflect on the meaning of this for a moment.

The truth of the matter is that we should always try to take from the past what is good and proper and to build the future on that, but N P van Wyk Louw, in his volume Lojale Verset said:

†Initially the control of the influx of members of the Black communities to areas occupied by Whites in the seventies of the eighteenth century took the form of the channelling of labour and job reservation in its extreme form. Slaves were imported during the early years after the coming into existence of the Cape of Good Hope. After the abolition of slavery measures to regulate the employment and movement of Black people were instituted for the first time. The first labour bureau was established in King William’s Town during 1856.

The Transvaal was divided into four labour districts in 1895 and a State labour bureau was established in 1907. The Native Labour Regulation Act was passed in 1911 to regulate the recruiting, employment, feeding and health of members of the Black communities. This Act was repealed and replaced by the Black Labour Act of 1964.

In Natal, Act No 15 of 1869—the so-called Vagrancy Law—established a curfew in Durban and Pietermaritzburg while a general curfew was established in the Transvaal by Ordinance No 43 of 1902. It regulated the presence of Black people in streets and in other places in White towns during the hours of darkness. After an inquiry that extended from 1903 to 1905 the Native Affairs Commission found that the pass system was very necessary. A few years later after an inquiry by the British High Commissioner, Lord Milner, the compulsory carrying of passes was confirmed by the Urban Areas Passes Act, No 18 of 1909.

A very important development in respect of Black people took place as a result of the so-called Stallard Report of 1922. It led to the passing of the Natives Urban Areas Act, No 21 of 1923.

The main provisions of this Act included, among others, the following: The compulsory registration of service contracts entered into between Black male employees and their employers and also that notice be given of the termination of the contract. Immediately on arrival in an urban area a Black person was required to obtain permission to reside therein and was required to produce on demand the document that was handed to him. If there was a surplus of Black labour, if he did not comply with the pass laws or if he was under the age of 18 years permission to enter the area could be refused. Black women could be prohibited from entering such a proclaimed area with the intention of seeking employment or residing there.

The intention was that the presence of all Black persons in the Republic would be of a temporary nature. Various further laws that put this policy into effect were made in subsequent years. One such a law was the tightening up of section 10 of the Black Urban Areas Consolidation Act, No 25 of 1945, in terms of which Black persons may reside in an urban area for longer than 72 hours only under certain specified circumstances.

Vast changes have taken place in our country since then. There were large movements of people from rural to urban areas. Economic development took place at an unprecedented rate. Our labour laws were modernised and made non-racial. More and more emphasis was placed on the free enterprise concept. Local government systems for members of Black communities were introduced.

Flowing from these changes the State President has on various occasions indicated that influx control has served its purpose and that the Government envisages one South African citizenship for all South African citizens. This must also be seen in conjunction with the State President’s statement on 31 January 1986 that we have outgrown the outdated colonial system of paternalism as well as the outdated concept of apartheid. Freedom of movement of persons will then depend on South African citizenship only. The State President therefore requested the President’s Council to advise “on strategies by means of which the process of urbanisation can be ordered in such a way as best to counter the present social, economic and physical problems resulting from rapid urbanisation”.

The President’s Council brought out its Report on an Urbanisation Strategy for the Republic of South Africa towards the end of 1985, and the Government reacted by tabling a White Paper on Urbanisation.

As is evidenced by the White Paper, the Government accepts, inter alia, that freedom of movement to and in urban areas should apply on a non-discriminatory basis for all citizens of the Republic, taking into consideration the distinctive settlement circumstances of communities in the Republic of South Africa. Together with this, the Government has accepted that urbanisation in this country, as in other parts of the world, is irreversible and in many respects probably desirable.

Insofar as legislation is concerned, the Government’s policy in respect of urbanisation can be summarised as follows:

Firstly, urbanisation measures will not draw a distinction on the grounds of race or colour; secondly, influx control as applied in terms of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, No 25 of 1945 and related laws will be abolished; thirdly, the reference book system as an influx control measure will be abolished; and fourthly, universal measures to combat nuisances such as disorderly squatting, slums and conditions that contain a health hazard will, where necessary, be amended and applied more effectively.

At first glance the Abolition of Influx Control Bill appears to set out primarily to amend the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, No 52 of 1951, but on closer examination one realises that this is not its only aim. The Bill has dramatic and far-reaching consequences and, as a whole, sets out to abolish influx control, to remove any distinction on the grounds of race or colour from urbanisation measures and to combat nuisances such as disorderly squatting, slums and conditions that contain health hazards in both the urban and rural areas of our country.

*Basically the Bill therefore deals with far more than the mere abolition of influx control. Here we are faced with law reform in the true sense of the word. I should like to hold up as an example a few features of the Bill to substantiate this statement.

Firstly, freedom of movement within the country is granted to all South Africans for the first time in history. The freedom of movement which is called for in declarations of human rights is, after all, the freedom of individuals to move around within the boundaries of their own country. In this Bill there is a complete recognition of the right of every citizen to move freely within the boundaries of the country. The former limitations with all their ramifications such as compulsory registration of service contracts and night passes are repealed.

Is that what the NP has worked for over all the years?

The second point is that urbanisation is placed in juridical perspective for the first time. There are no more legal limitations on urbanisation. That has obviously failed. It is now acknowledged that urbanisation must be regulated in terms of ordinary and universal laws on housing, squatting, health, slums, township establishment and so forth. Thirdly … [Interjections.] The hon member will have an opportunity to make a speech and I really want to appeal to him …

Order! The hon the Minister is making an important statement. Hon members will have the opportunity to speak afterwards. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thirdly, I wish to point out that this Bill contributes towards the rationalisation of legislation to which my department is giving attention in any event. The laws which are repealed by this Bill are probably some of the most comprehensive and complicated on our Statute Book. They gave the bureaucracy comprehensive and arbitrary powers. The laws and regulations be-’ came so complicated with the passage of time that only the officials concerned understood them. Even among them different interpretations were possible. The Bill terminates this untenable and uncertain situation.

Fourthly it should be noted that some of the laws which are to be repealed directly or indirectly constituted an infringement of the administration of justice. The Blacks (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act, 1956, for example, limited the right of Blacks to appeal to the courts. In terms of section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, a Black was presumed to have been in an urban area for longer than 72 hours if he was charged for being there for longer than 72 hours without permission. Section 29 of the same Act gave commissioners, and later magistrates, power to hold quasi-judicial inquiries concerning so-called idle and undesirable Blacks.

Fifthly, this legislation will, with the passage of time, phase out the system of migratory labour. There is obviously not enough family accommodation available for all workers. Legally, however, there will be nothing to prevent a man from having his family with him. In my opinion this, of course, places a great responsibility upon people not to take their families to labour centres if there is no accommodation available.

Mr Chairman, is it at this stage possible for me to ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, Sir, I do not answer any questions now. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

This also imposes a great responsibility on employers to assist their employees in acquiring accommodation.

Does that include polygamists?

Fear has been expressed that the abolition of influx control will create a state of lawlessness. I do not agree with that. Influx control was never necessary to maintain law and order in respect of other population groups.

Crossroads!

Mr Chairman, Crossroads came into being despite the application of the control measures which the hon member for Rissik also advocates.

Yes, and because of a weak government.

And a weak Minister as well! [Interjections.]

Order!

These measures were not introduced for that purpose. There are various other legislative measures which can be applied to ensure orderly urbanisation. Social problems can in any event not be solved by merely applying coercive measures. Solutions for problems must be sought at the root.

Crime in an urbanisation context is not merely the result of people being in cities. It could rather be ascribed to inadequate housing, poverty, broken homes and so on. Law enforcement ought not to be applied collectively nor in a discriminatory manner. It may be counterproductive. All of us should rather work together to eliminate disorderly conditions and to allow legal processes for the maintenance of law and order to take their ordinary course.

I wish to add, however, that the object was not only the repeal of laws. Over and above the laws which are under discussion every other law which is directly or indirectly related to urbanisation has in consultation with the departments concerned been placed under a magnifying glass. It has, for example, been found that health legislation is comprehensive and is being modernised on an on-going basis so that for present purposes no adjustments are necessary. Particulars of other legislation are to be found in Schedule 1 to the White Paper.

The reaction to the White Paper on Urbanisation as well as to the Bill itself was generally overwhelmingly positive and I would regard that as confirmation that most people are of the opinion that it complies with the demands of our times and the principles of justice.

Mr Chairman, I listened with great attention and appreciation to what the hon the Minister said. [Interjections.] His historical introduction was relevant, and his analysis of what was going to be achieved with this Bill, was correct.

Allow me to say right from the start that this side of the House supports this Bill.

We knew that! [Interjections.]

On this occasion I therefore wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to the chairman of the standing committee which dealt with this matter, as well as to the officials who made themselves available to the standing committee, for the tremendous amount of work they have done in the preparation of the Bill. I also wish to express my thanks for the atmosphere which prevailed on that standing committee. I think that in general it was definitely one of the standing committee’s which produced some of the most positive results we have ever had from the standing committee system.

As the hon the Minister indicated, this Bill deals basically with two aspects, (matters.) The one is illegal squatting, to which the hon the Minister referred, and the other is the abolition of influx control. As the hon the Minister indicated, this Bill should be considered against the background of the White Paper on Urbanisation, which was published a little while ago.

I want to say at once that the importance of that White Paper cannot be underestimated. For the first time in the history of our country we have now received a specific strategy for urbanisation according to which the inevitability of urbanisation, especially for our Black population, is accepted. In that regard it is a complete change, a happy change, from the unrealistic premise which we have had in our legislation all these years and which we maintained in our implementation of policy, according to which the normal economic and other forces which compelled Blacks to urbanise, has been consistently disregarded.

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

No, Sir, I will be prepared to answer questions at a later stage, though. [Interjections.]

I merely wish to refer to the fact that as recently as 1978 Blacks were still spoken of as temporary residents in our urban areas—”temporary sojourners”. [Interjections.] I am glad that we have at last moved beyond that stage. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Prof Olivier, the main speaker on his side of the House, is stating his party’s standpoint. He should be allowed an opportunity to do so. The hon member Prof Olivier may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

I wish to emphasise that in the White Paper we are in fact dealing with a realistic adjustment in accordance with what the facts in South Africa have taught us, and from which we cannot escape. There are three particular points in the White Paper which I wish to emphasise, although the White Paper in its entirety is important. Firstly I wish to single out the question of the provision of housing; secondly, of making enough land available; and thirdly, of creating economic development and employment opportunities for Blacks.

In this regard I want to say that what the White Paper does is, for the first time, to take cognisance in a realistic manner of the fact that if we want to have proper, orderly urbanisation, we cannot expect this to happen if sufficient land is not made available for this purpose. I am grateful that, not only in the White Paper itself, but also in the Bill, to which I shall return later, provision is specifically being made for land to be set aside for this purpose in order to keep squatting under control. Land will have to be made available for housing in general, and I welcome this premise in the White Paper.

I also welcome the fact that it is clear according to the White Paper that for the first time the principle that a variety of bodies have to be involved in the provision of housing is being taken into account: The Blacks themselves, employers, local authorities and of course the central authority. This also applies to the funding of housing. If these requirements are not complied with, urbanisation will merely remain a fantasy for us.

In this regard I wish to refer specifically to the provision in the Bill and the amendments effected by the standing committee in regard to squatting and more specifically to the provision which is being made in clauses 4(c), 10 and especially 12, by means of which a new section 6A is being inserted into the principal Act. In this way the obligation is in fact being imposed on the Minister by the central authority to provide land on which Blacks for whom no other housing has been provided are able to squat.

In this regard I wish to say that one of course welcomes the amendment to section 3 of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act. It became apparent from the discussion on the standing committee that the powers of the hon the Minister are now for the most part being replaced by the intervention of the courts, something which we also welcome. I think this is an important amendment which arose from the discussion of the standing committee.

In this regard I just wish to draw attention to a fact which is often neglected in the discussion of squatting. It is that our courts have adopted the clear standpoint that a person may only be required to vacate the housing which he occupies—however poor it might be—if alternative housing is available. I think that the provisions in this Bill on illegal squatting should also be seen against this background.

As the hon the Minister indicated, the most important provision of this legislation is contained in a single clause of the Bill, namely clause 17, because it repeals the Acts mentioned in the schedules. Those Acts are generally known as the Acts which regulated influx control.

Let me say at once that I do not think there is any other legislation in South Africa that has caused so much resentment, so much bitterness and so much alienation as the legislation which is about to be repealed by this Bill. I do not think there are any measures which have caused greater allienation between Black people as a whole, and the central authorities, the police and officialdom—all of whom were burdened with this legislation—than these very measures. The aftermath of these measures—I am sorry to say this—will remain with us for a very long time, because the removal of these measures will not be able to wipe out in an instant the resentment and the bitterness which these measures caused.

Over the years, as we know, literally millions of Blacks were arrested and sent to jail. In terms of the night permit system alone, according to calculations since 1945, no fewer than 4 million Blacks have been sent to jail—and this figure is the lowest of all!

None of us will ever be able to overestimate the effect which these measures have had on the quality of life of the Blacks, on their human existence as a whole.

I just wish to tell my hon colleagues in the CP that if they attach value—as I understand them to say they do—to human dignity and if they wish to recognise the dignity of the Black person, there is not the slightest possibility of their supporting the continuation of these measures. [Interjections.] I am convinced that if their policy were to be implemented, they would not wish to have Whites subjected to this kind of legislation in the states which they are going to establish for the Blacks. What these measures did was to assail a fundamental freedom of the Blacks …

Oh please, that is nonsense!

… to impair their dignity, and they were an invasion of their privacy, for in terms of these measures, whether my hon colleagues in the CP wish to admit it or not, the police and the officials of the local authorities and subsequently of the administration and development boards had the right to say to a Black person at any time, wherever he may have been, that he had to prove that he had the right to be where he was. Such an official had the right to accost any Black person, wherever he may have been working, and to say to him that he had to prove that he had the right to be working where he is working. He could at any time say to a Black person that he had to bring him the proof that he had the right to live where he was living and to sleep where he was sleeping. They could also ask every employer to prove that he had the right to employ that Black person.

We are not dealing merely with influx control; on the contrary, the aspects of influx control is in fact the least of what these measures did to people. It is but one aspect of the totality of what was done in an attempt to control the influx to the urban areas. It was the total control which was exercised over Black people in the urban areas in terms of these measures.

We are dealing with the abolition of that total control, and that is why the abolition of this legislation is definitely one of the most important abolition measures we have ever had before this House. I shall come back to that in due course.

If one takes a look at the measures which are being repealed one sees that they are in fact concerned with the control measures for bringing Blacks into the urban areas, their residence, their employment and their removal from the urban areas. They are also concerned with their prosecution if they have not complied with those requirements. One of the principle measures about to be repealed, is Chapter IV of the Development Trust and Land Act, No 18 of 1936, with all its complications and its control over squatting by farm and other labourers. Of particular importance is the repeal of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945. This includes inter alia the abolition of all influx and residence control measures under sections 10, 10bis, 11, 12 and 14.

Section 9 is also being repealed. It includes the notorious church clause which led to so much opposition and strife between Church and State when it was placed on the Statute Book. The fact of the matter is that a prohibition could, in terms of section 9, be placed on the provision of any services outside Black urban areas, services such as hospitals and educational institutions for Blacks. There is the provision in terms of section 10 that a Black person may not remain in an urban area for longer than 24 hours; also that no one may employ a Black person in an urban area without the permission of an official. Then, too, there is the removal of undesirable Black persons from an urban area in terms of section 29, and so I can continue.

The repeal of these provisions is far-reaching in the sense that it removes of the main causes of conflict between Blacks and Whites in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

In this regard I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon the Minister on the repeal of the Blacks (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act, 1956 and the other measures which are to be repealed in terms of the Bill. They were in fact an attack upon the rule of law. I am grateful that with this legislation we are restoring the rule of law, in other words the power of disposition of the courts over these matters. I am referring in particular to sections 10 and 29 and to the Blacks (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act. I also welcome the abolition of the Black Labour Regulations and the Contributions in respect of Black Labour Act.

In particular I appreciate the assurance which the hon the Minister gave us that with the phasing out of the contract system, the necessary proclamation would make provision for the repeal of the Black Labour Act of 1964.

The repeal of these measures once again places Parliament, as has seldom been the case during the existence of this Parliament, in a position to make a contribution to the removal of friction between Whites and Blacks in South Africa.

In this regard I want to refer to a further important provision and that is the amendment to section 5 of the Black Administration Act. In terms of that section the authorities had the power to relocate Blacks, Black tribes and Black communities. The Government has already announced that it is no longer going to proceed with forced removals in that sense. Here concrete implementation is being given to that intention of the Government.

The amendment of section 5 of the Black Administration Act as well as the repeal of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act and especially section 29 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act means that the legal machinery for the forced removal of Blacks is now being done away with. I am sincerely grateful for that, for when I think of the injustice which those forced removals brought in their wake, all I can say is that the repeal of these measures should have taken place long ago.

In this regard the repeal of the Blacks (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act has great significance. As hon members know, no Black person could appeal to the courts for an interdict against his removal, even though such a removal might have been quite unlawful, on legal grounds.

I do not think it is necessary for me to take up any more of this House’s time. If the hon member for Rissik still wishes to put his question, I am now prepared to give him an opportunity to do so.

Mr Chairman, in view of the hon member Prof Olivier’s attitude to urbanisation, would he agree when I say that urbanisation to cities in South Africa is also occurring from Mozambique, Swaziland, Botswana and Zimbabwe?

Mr Chairman, this Parliament and this House has no constitutional or statutory duty or responsibility to the people of Zimbabwe or Zambia or Lesotho, or any other country. The task and responsibility of this Parliament is to the people—and all the people—of this country. It is therefore essential in the first place that we must create a situation, as regards the people of this country, in which we, including the hon members of the Conservative Party, and our children can all look forward to a period of peaceful co-existence and stability. Without that peaceful co-existence and stability not one of us will be able to feel safe in this country; not one of us will be able to do our work properly in this country. Therefore it is our primary task and responsibility in respect of our own people to create a dispensation for all our people in which everyone who is part of this country, and who form part of this country and its population, can feel that they are South Africans, and that they will be treated like South Africans.

Transkeians?

I shall let that suffice, Mr Chairman. If we do not succeed in that I think we can expect only the greatest conflict in this country which Africa has hitherto known.

In conclusion—and I do not want to exaggerate—I wish to point out that because one was so intimately involved in the effects of this legislation, because one was for many years, not only as an academic, but as an employer as well, involved in the effect of these measures and because one was confronted over the years, not only by hostile critics from abroad—these could always be dealt with after all—but also by our own fellow Black South Africans, who confronted one with the problems that had been created by these measures, and one then stood powerless before them, one is profoundly aware, not only of the injustice, but also of the genuine suffering which these measures have caused our Black people. That is why I believe, Mr Chairman, that the repeal of these measures is an historic moment for Parliament. I emphasise that when I say this I am definitely not trying to exaggerate.

That is why I express my appreciation and I believe, the appreciation of this House that it has happened that this House of Assembly has been called to …

Mr Chairman, would the hon member, Prof Olivier, inform the House whether he is convinced that all the influx control measures that have been adopted over the years were adopted purely as a result of a feeling of resentment or hatred or vindictiveness against the Blacks, or whether these measures were not adopted in the first place, because of compassion for and understanding of the position of the Whites in South Africa?

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the question by the hon member for Sasolburg. Many of these measures are the product of an era when the White’s position of sovereignty over the non-Whites in the world was indisputable. During the era when the political hegemony of the Whites, in the form of colonialism or whatever, was accepted and understood throughout the world, we in South Africa simply did many of the things we did, by virtue of that position of power of Whites over Blacks. I refer to the legislation which the hon the Minister mentioned, for example the 1923 Act.

I have never said that any of these measures were adopted because of a need of White Governments to harm the Blacks, but I want to add that unfortunately these things were subsequently ruined by the ideology. I want to say at once—it is no use our trying to escape it—that the ideology of separation according to which we at all costs and in every possible sphere had to separate people from one another on the grounds of race or colour led to our no longer being prepared to apply decent principles of humanity and human dignity. I think I can answer the hon member for Sasolburg’s question in this way. It is as simple as that. It does not help trying to escape it. It is that ideology which led to the much of this legislation being passed, especially after 1948, which caused all the suffering in our country. I say this without qualification.

With that I wish in conclusion merely to confirm that we on this side of the House support this legislation, especially the repeal of the measures as specified therein.

Mr Chairman, we thank the hon member Prof Olivier for his support of this legislation.

If there are five experts who must be singled out in the field of Black affairs in South Africa, the hon member Prof Olivier is one of them. He speech before the House this afternoon bears witness once again to his knowledge of and balanced approach to this very delicate and complex problem in South Africa.

At this stage I wish to thank the secretary of the study group very sincerely for the privilege of being able to enter the debate. I also wish to make use of this opportunity to associate myself with what the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech to emphasise once again that the legislation before the House this afternoon is the most important legislation with regard to Black affairs since the NP came to power in 1948.

The political and social consequences which will arise from the acceptance of this legislation, will be debated decades hence. Among the innumerable laws and proclamations which are to be repealed, there is the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945. Mention has already been made of the repeal of section 10 of this Act which has been known as the influx control mechanism since 1952. It is now being repealed and will bring about a fundamental turn-about in NP thinking in respect of Black affairs.

It is one of the most far-reaching measures in South African political history. I shall dedicate the rest of my speech to this matter.

According to section 10 of the Act concerned, influx control was the subject of many a debate in the Security Council and in the General Assembly of the UNO. On international forums abroad the Government has been condemned because of its influx control system. The system has been the focal point of the international onslaught against South Africa for decades.

There have been various reports concerning section 10 of the influx control measures in our country. I am referring specifically to the Riekert Report, and I honour the memory of a great man who had foresight in dealing with Black affairs and who made certain recommendations which we are implementing in a certain sense today, eight years after his recommendation.

I am also referring to the Grosskopf Report concerning influx control and section 10. In addition I am referring to the President’s Council’s report and also to well-known court judgments, such as the Rikhoto and the Komani judgments. They are all facets of this involved, complex problem of how the quality of life of those Blacks living outside the independent states should have been organised and regulated. The bitter irony of all these cases is that no single statutory measure has harmed South Africa’s image—let us say that to each other today and get done with it—as much as section 10. Internally as well—here I associate myself with professor Olivier—no measure …

Why don’t you also join his party?

The hon member will have his opportunity to speak [Interjections.] No measure has put as much of a strain on Black-White relationships as this very measure.

In repealing section 10 by means of this measure, we are finally burying apartheid today. [Interjections.] We are burying it finally. This measure puts an end to the greatest illusion in the history of Afrikaner political thinking. [Interjections.] Influx control and section 10 form the Trojan horse of the whole apartheid policy, because while the apartheid policy was intent upon separating Blacks and Whites and while it was intent upon causing greater division between Whites and Blacks and while it was intent upon establishing different citizenships in different national homes …

Different schools as well! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik should try to rise from his level to a higher level and listen to what I am saying. [Interjections.] Section 10 and influx control are the Trojan horse of the whole apartheid idea, because while attempts were made by means of policy to bring about separation, section 10 has given millions of Blacks permanency and settlement in White South Africa through the years. Citizenship, of which no power and no law can deprive them, was established, and by means of the section 10 instrument, the whole idea of apartheid has died. More citizenship rights were established for Blacks in White South Africa in this way than was the case in terms of Act 21 of 1971 regarding Blacks in the national states.

By accepting this measure, we are therefore taking leave today of a myth or an illusion, and are embarking irrevocably on a new road.

The road to a Black majority government! [Interjections.]

Influx control measures were never a bulwark; they were a sieve. Section 10 has always had certain inherent shortcomings. The irony of this great drama is that the NP policy, the apartheid policy, had to be implemented in certain areas in terms of an old SA Party instrument. That is why it never worked! Influx control was a sieve; not a bulwark. The 72 hour provision, the contract labour system and illegal employment through the years all bear witness to this.

What has really happened in respect of Black urbanisation during the past 20 years? There was a stream of Blacks who urbanised for purely economic reasons. During the past five years this has been the case to an increasing extent. Due to influx control measures, a few cases were taken out of this stream and identified, but this could not reverse the flow of the stream. It did not change its momentum.

There was the unusual phenomenon that the charges and convictions in terms of influx control bore absolutely no relation to the nature of the offence. There was a vicious circle of prosecution, charging, conviction and release. Often there was an arrest for the same offence two months later. [Interjections.] During the past two years 280 000 Blacks have been prosecuted in terms of these measures. They were charged, and set free again. It was a vicious circle which bedevilled relations between Whites and Blacks on an inhuman scale.

This contributed to establishing of the image of an oppressive government among the Blacks. No measure bedevilled relations between Whites and Blacks to a greater extent than this measure did. When these measures are repealed, it is the desire of those of us on this side of the House that order and stability be established in the urban Black communities.

Such as in Crossroads! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe is referring to Crossroads. As the hon the Minister quite rightly said, Crossroads, Attridgeville, Mamelodi, Zwide and all the Black areas are landmarks indicating the failure of the influx control measures.

Khayelitsha too? [Interjections.]

Yes, Khayelitsha too, because Khayelitsha had to be established to make provision for the overflow of people from Crossroads. [Interjections.]

Does that mean Bellville is the overflow of Whites in South Africa? [Interjections.]

You do not know what you are talking about!

I am talking about the failure of the NP Government.

Order! I understand that it is possible to have vastly differing points of view, but that does not mean the hon member may not proceed unhindered with his speech. Hon members would like to listen to the hon member for Bellville; he may proceed.

No orderly and stable Black community can be established under these circumstances, because the basis upon which it is built under influx control and the influx control system is one of conflict, suspicion, discrimination and hatred. It is a basis which forces many families back into slum conditions. Furthermore a stereotyped pattern of family life was revealed when the husband had temporary status in terms of section 10(1)(d). I verified that; I know what I am talking about. The wife was also here illegally and the child that is born here has section 10(1)(a) status. Seen from a social point of view, no orderly society can be built on this basis, and we are scrapping it today. We say it belongs to the past and we want nothing more to do with it.

That is the sombre and morbid reality of the Blacks in the cities. It is a reality which we cannot escape. That is why we are closing that chapter today. South Africa’s interests are not being served by this, nor can they be. The survival of the Whites is being threatened, not protected, by these measures. That is why we are closing the chapter, because influx control measures are discriminatory; they fail to appreciate the basic human rights of freedom of movement and association. The repeal of these measures is concluding a specific period in the political history of South Africa.

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

Mr Chairman, would the hon member wait a moment, please?

In repealing these measures the Government has placed itself inexorably on the threshold of a new South Africa. It will be a South Africa in which the question is no longer who is going to win—the Whites or the Blacks—but whether Whites and Blacks will be able to triumph together or succumb together in the face of Black domination.

A Black majority government.

Apartheid and conflict lie behind us; peace through negotiation is the strategy for the future, even while the stormy clouds of unrest are gathering heavily on the horizon.

Mr Chairman, in view of what the hon member said that apartheid and influx control were behind him, and in view thereof that the 12-point plan which is the NP’s mandate, creates the linkage policy, what mandate does the hon member have to say what he said?

Mr Chairman, I have really been trying to follow the hon member’s question, but I really could not understand it. Could he just repeat it, please?

Mr Chairman, does the hon member have a mandate to do what he is doing? [Interjections.]

Yes. Justice is our mandate. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bellville today commended the hon member Prof Olivier on his speech and thanked him for his support. I want to tell the hon member Prof Olivier today that the legislation which is to be abolished here at today does not represent a victory for him and the PFP as a whole. It is indeed a victory for the hon member for Bellville, who has just spoken.

In a moment I shall explain why I am saying that this Bill is a victory for the hon member for Bellville. I think that if there is any hon member on that side of the House who feels himself at liberty to have made the speech that he did make and to adopt the standpoints that he did adopt, it is the hon member for Bellville and that hon member alone.

No, I am not alone.

The hon member has gained many supporters over the years. The hon member for Bellville persuaded the State President, the whole head council of the NP in the Cape and members of the caucus of the NP to accept his standpoint. I want to congratulate him on that. Few hon members of the NP in this House have managed to do what the hon member for Bellville has managed to do. [Interjections.] I shall, however, be coming back to that at a later stage.

The hon member for Bellville said that today we were finally burying apartheid. [Interjections.] The NP is burying apartheid, he said. He also said the NP had a mandate to do so. Let me quote from the programme of action on which the NP won the 1981 election:

[Interjections.] It is further stated:

That is another cardinal truth. The programme of action, however, goes on to state:

The legislation before this House of Assembly today cuts this umbilical cord—it was an NP principle—that the Blacks in the White area would politically continue to be finked to their fatherland.

I therefore want to tell the hon member for Bellville today that although it has been his personal standpoint over the years, the NP does not have a mandate to continue with this legislation. [Interjections.] I repeat, Sir, that the NP does not have a mandate to continue with this legislation. [Interjections.]

What does that programme say about the Coloured homeland? [Interjections.]

This hon Minister asks what about a Coloured homeland.

Yes, what does that programme say about the Coloured homeland?

Over the years the NP has said that a Coloured homeland was not practicable. Prior to 1982 the NP rejected integration with Coloureds. [Interjections.] This hon Minister—at the time he was still Minister of Health and Welfare—and the NP as a whole have in principle accepted integration with the Coloureds. In doing so he has jettisoned one of the most important principles of the NP. [Interjections.] We in the CP say that the possibility of a Coloured homeland has become practicable since the liberalists in the NP have been left behind, those hon members who have always believed in integration and never wanted to accept the homelands.

You were elected as a Nationalist; where do you now get the right…

Yes, but the hon the Minister was also elected as a Nationalist, and now he is accepting integration with Coloureds. He was elected as a Nationalist at a congress that advocated influx control measures and now he is abolishing them. He ought to be ashamed of that! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said this afternoon:

For that reason, he went on to say, this is also a great moment in the history of South Africa. The hon member Prof Olivier also said that this legislation heralded one of the greatest moments in the history of this Parliament. [Interjections.] For the PFP it is a great moment. As far as I am concerned, however, it was a great moment in this Parliament when we gave true freedom to the Xhosa people to govern themselves, on a full-fledged basis, in their own fatherland. [Interjections.] That was a great moment as far as I was concerned, and that is why President Matanzima could recently say on television that he thanked the 1948 Government which, by its policy of apartheid, gave true freedom to the Xhosa people. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned it was a great moment when we gave the Venda, the Tswana and the people of Ciskei true freedom in their own fatherlands. It is a tragic moment, as far as I am concerned, that this Bill is before this House of Assembly today. [Interjections.] Moreover, a Bill submitted by someone like the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who has called himself a Nationalist over the years. I think he ought to delete the name “National Party”, because he is actually the leader of the liberal reform party. [Interjections.]

I challenge the hon the Minister of Communications to have an election called. I am not afraid of an election, because the NP’s membership in Kuruman decreased by 42% last year because the NP had chosen to adopt this course. That is why I am challenging the hon the Minister to ask the State President to call an election, because we want an election so that we can stop this reckless party on this destructive course on which it is taking White South Africa. [Interjections.]

I should like to quote the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who said:

I thought the hon the Minister and his party would have learnt from the wisdom that the history of Africa has brought to the fore. The history of Africa has shown that the White man has eventually lost power wherever he has relinquished it. The hon the Minister is free to examine the history of Africa—he will see that where the White man relinquished his power, he eventually had to get out, and there there was economic decline, bankruptcy, poverty and famine. That is history. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kroonstad, with the little wisdom he does have, would do well to draw on the wisdom of history.

The hon member Prof Olivier said that if one continued with separate development, there would be the greatest imaginable conflict in this country. Since the NP accepted the Prog principle of power-sharing and began implementing it, we have had the greatest possible conflict, clashes and bloodshed in this country’s history. [Interjections.] Where is the progress we were supposed to have? Since the Government accepted power-sharing, and since the advent of a multiracial Government, foreign investors who have applied their wisdom to analysing the history of Africa say their money and investments are not safe in a multiracial State with a multiracial Government at the southern tip of Africa. That is why they will not invest here. [Interjections.] Many of those who voted yes, and the friends of the hon members of the PFP on my right, annually take thousands of millions of rand out of this country because they do not have any faith in a multiracial Government in South Africa.

That is a blatant untruth.

The history of Africa has also shown that the numerical preponderance of Blacks was eventually decisive in those countries where the White man relinquished power and handed it over to a Black majority government or where power was shared with Black people and the Blacks were in the majority. The Government has accepted the principle of one country, one nation and one government. In this country there is a massive numerical preponderance, because there are 4½ million Whites, 2½ million Coloureds, 1 million Asiatics and approximately 27 million Black people. The lesson taught by Africa ought to tell them that they are traversing very dangerous ground which is endangering the future of their people and their fatherland.

The hon member Prof Olivier referred to squatting. Clause 12—this envisages the insertion of section 6A—aims at the designation of land for controlled squatting. The CP is opposed to squatting in principle. The CP states that the Black peoples must optimally be settled in their own fatherlands. Job opportunities must be created for them in their own fatherlands so that each of them can live in his own fatherland, in his own home and with his own family and so that he can also exercise his political rights there.

The CP says that the millions of rand being spent to settle Black squatters on the Cape Flats should rather be employed for development and job-creation within their Black fatherlands. Then the Xhosa would not need to trek to Cape Town to look for work, but could rather obtain that work in or near his fatherland so that he could live with his family in his own fatherland.

The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act is now being amended, but it is interesting to note that the State President has designated squatting as an own affair. Squatting is an own affair, but this House of Assembly cannot pass a single piece of legislation on squatting. Likewise the Coloureds and Indians who also have squatting as an own affair, cannot pass any legislation on squatting. That is the inanity of this tricameral Parliament. That is why I do not blame hon members like the hon member for Bellville when he says that one will eventually have to do away with the so-called own affairs. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning himself will be doing away with it.

This Bill is one of the most important documents giving substance to, and furnishing proof of, a reckless Government’s policy of selling the Whites and their fatherland down the river, a reckless Government that has completely lost sight of Nationalism and White self-determination. With this measure the Government is throwing open the doors to those who want to enter our fatherland. It is turning our country into a market-place instead of a future home for the Afrikaner and the White nation.

Hon members opposite who were elected under the NP banner must listen to what the late Dr D F Malan said in 1948:

That is what the hon member for Bellville said today, because he spoke of “reg en geregtigheid”.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the late Dr Malan allowed non-White children into White schools?

I am quoting what Dr Malan said in 1948. Is the NP’s policy not still one of separate schools, or has it deviated from that? [Interjections.] As far as I know, over the years the NP has advocated separate schools for the various races, and that is why this policy was accepted. I now want to ask Dr van der Watt: Does he want to imply that Dr Malan advocated integration and permitted mixed schools? I now want the hon member for Bloemfontein East to stand up in this debate and tell us if he is implying that Dr Malan advocated mixed schools, or does he want to use Dr Malan’s example to open up the schools? [Interjections.]

I quote again what Dr Malan said:

The NP has now thrown wide the doors to make South Africa a market-place for everyone to enter. We are now asking the Government to call an election so that the CP can come into power and so that we can once again protect the interests of White South Africans.

Resign your seat!

The hon member Mr van Staden is not in a position to stick to such a party. He is here on sufferance.

Just resign your seat!

I shall resign if a few hon NP members would also resign. The CP wants the Government to call a general election. [Interjections.] The NP is here at the State President’s benevolence. [Interjections.] I move the following amendment:

The Pension Benefits for Councillors of Local Authorities Bill was submitted to a standing committee on 15 March. We heard evidence and the Bill was referred back to the Administrators. To this day there has not been any unanimity about this little Bill.

The Abolition of Influx Control Bill, however, was explained at the first sitting of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning and at the next day’s meeting it was accepted within two hours, without investigation or debate, because, of course, here we have legislation that is moving away from the traditional policy of separate development. The Bill was piloted through the standing committee “chop-chop”. I had to attend an hour-long meeting of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, and when I returned from that meeting to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, the measure had already been dealt with. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Winburg is laughing now. [Interjections.] He is laughing because when the CP was not there to take up the cudgels for the Whites of South Africa, the Government managed to arrange a sell-out within an hour. [Interjections.] Quick as a wink the standing committee approves the abolition of measures controlling the influx of Blacks to White South Africa, particularly the metropolitan areas. The abolition of influx control measures is the best possible proof of the present impotence of the once might NP. It is the best possible proof of the impotence of the NP congresses as instruments and of the fact that that members of the NP are a helpless bunch.

Over the years the NP congress have adopted resolutions that were converted into legislation which, when passed by Parliament, were monuments to self-determination in White South Africa.

At present if the NP congress adopts an unanimous standpoint about influx control, whilst Rev Hendrickse’s party congress adopts a diametrically opposed standpoint, in this process of “give and take”—that is what the hon member for Randburg calls it—not one of the three Houses will have a first choice since we shall, in the final instance, have to be satisfied with second or third choice. The decisions being taken this year by the NP congresses are not worth the paper they are written on. After consensus is reached between Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi, the NP must be satisfied with a distorted standpoint on these matters—in other words, with second or third choice. [Interjections.]

Over the years there has been tremendous opposition to the Western Cape being overrun by Black people, with the Coloureds in particular, being elbowed out of their jobs. There was opposition here in the Western Cape to squatting and the concomitant social and political problems.

I remember how the NP congress of 1978 adopted forceful anti-influx resolutions. I quote:

That is the heading under which the following appeared:

That draft resolution was adopted under the leadership of the present State President. He said—I still remember his words—the Cape has now given enough. Transkei and a large portion of Bophuthatswana have already been given; what is to be left of the Cape?

I remember that when Dr Connie Mulder was elucidating the leasehold legislation in the caucus, the present State President stood up and said the Cape had given enough—leasehold rights for Blacks in the Western Cape would not be allowed.

His word is not worth anything. [Interjections.]

Those were his words and that is why I supported the State President on this issue at the time.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Then that hon Minister, as Administrator of the Cape was, clapping his hands.

Did he agree to everything?

I still remember the 1981 Head Council Meeting when a report of a subcommittee of the planning committee of the Head Council was discussed. On that occasion the hon member for Bellville said that influx control was a futile exercise. That is precisely what he said here today. At the time he said the Government was not succeeding and would not succeed in handling influx control. He said one should do away with the Western Cape as a labour preference area for Coloureds and for Whites and that leasehold rights should be granted to Blacks. Does the hon the Minister remember that? [Interjections.] The hon member for Bellville said it at that Head Council meeting.

I am sorry the hon Chief Whip of Parliament is not here at the moment because that day he almost bit the hon member for Bellville’s head off. I did not agree with the hon member for Bellville, but on that occasion I felt very sorry for him. At that Head Council meeting the hon member for Bellville was the only one who held this view. [Interjections.] I disagreed with him, and I still do today, but the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon members for Tygervallei and False Bay …

They wanted to lynch him.

They just about wanted to murder him for saying something like that, or rather they wanted to lynch him. [Interjections.]

That is why I am saying that that hon member succeeded in persuading the NP to adopt the view he held at the time. The State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning went trotting at his heels. In 1983 there 11 draft resolutions for the congress on the influx of Black people to the Western Cape. Here from the Western Cape people lodged objections, particularly from the False Bay constituency, to the influx of Black people to the Western Cape.

On 6 February 1984 the hon member for Bellville said here, and I quote from Die Burger of 7 February 1984 …

You must not devote your entire speech to me.

It is worth it.

On 6 February 1984 that hon member said: “Gee huurpag aan Swartmense in Wes-Kaapland.” He also went further and said:

That is what the hon member for Bellville said on 6 February 1986. On 21 February 1986 the hon member for Bellville made another speech here in the House of Assembly.

Not in 1986, Jan.

Pardon me, it was in 1984. He made his speech on 21 February 1984 and the headline in Die Burger stated: “Huurpag—LV steun Regering.” [Interjections.] I suspect that that hon member was hauled before his caucus and I believe he was called into the State President’s office …

And to appear before the head boy.

I think that hon member was confronted with the fait accompli of having to renounce the standpoint he had adopted on 6 February 1984, ie that leasehold legislation should be applicable in the Western Cape, and apologise. He had to repudiate what he had said. [Interjections.] Then, as befits a good hon member of the NP, he said he would abide by what the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare said—he was still a Deputy Minister at the time—i.e. That it was still NP Policy that leasehold for Black people in the Western Cape was out of the question. That was in February 1984.

On 2 May 1984, the hon member for False Bay said:

Now he is not concerned anymore.

He went on to say:

That is what that hon member said.

Jan, tell us a little about the future. [Interjections.]

That is what the hon member said at that stage.

Tell us a bit about your policy.

During that same debate the hon member for Turffontein took the floor and said:

This hon member says the PFP’s policy amounts to “throwing everything open”, because then he still said there should be houses when Black people come here. Now section 3C of the principal Act is being repealed by Clause 7 of this Bill. This eliminates the necessity of having houses for Blacks who want to come along here. [Interjections.] The argument, the ramparts, behind which the hon members for Turffontein and False Bay ensconced themselves when they accused the PFP, is also being broken down before their very eyes in this legislation. I am now asking the hon member for False Bay whether he supports this legislation. Does he agree with the hon member for Bellville? I also want him to participate in the debate. He must tell us whether he agrees with the hon member for Bellville when the hon member for Bellville says that today apartheid has finally been buried. I want him to stand up and tell us whether he supports what the hon member for Bellville said.

Interestingly enough, Mr Chairman, in February 1984 the hon member for Bellville said that the prohibition on leasehold rights and the principle of granting ‘preference to Coloureds in the Western Cape should be abolished. Approximately a week later, however, he had to repudiate his statement. Then, however, Rev Hendrickse became a member of the Cabinet, and …

Rev Hendrickse took over!

The National Party congress resolution in 1984 was reported in the following terms in Die Burger of 27 September 1984:

Hear, hear!

And the hon member for Randburg says: “Hear, hear!”

Yes, just imagine!

That is why I am saying…

But Wynand is a Prog, is he not!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bellville is the only hon member who, over the years, has adopted a consistent standpoint on this issue. He convinced the hon members of the governing party, one by one, that the Western Cape should no longer be regarded as a preference area for Coloureds and Whites …

Of course! It was high time, too!

… and that the Influx Control Act should be abolished. Mr Chairman, that is why I cannot blame the hon member for Bellville. [Interjections.]

At the beginning of this year the State President announced that influx control measures were going to be abolished. In a quite dictatorial fashion the State President suspended the operation of the relevant Acts of this Parliament, without the consent of the National Party congresses. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is now sitting right here opposite me. He is the one introducing the legislation under discussion. I put it to him that he surely does not have the consent of a single one of the National Party congresses to repeal the influx control legislation.

But he does not pay any attention to the congresses!

I am asking the hon the Minister whether he has the necessary consent to do so. I am now saying here that not a single National Party congress consented to the abolition of influx control measures. At the end of this year the delegates to the congress will be told that the legislation has been abolished and that they must, in fact, accept the fact.

And also applaud it!

Yes, then they will simply have to clap their hands for …

Christianus Rex Imperator!

Vir II Duce Mussolini!

I want to give the best illustration of what is happening, and the Western Cape is an excellent example. The State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning blocked the extension of leasehold rights and the abolition of preferential treatment for Coloured labour in the Western Cape. When, however, they lost out in the face of reality—as they refer to it—they simply threw influx control overboard for the whole of South Africa.

Jolly old losers!

Khayelitsha was to have been built to accommodate 300 000 Black people. The hon member said it would accommodate the overflow of Crossroads. The people of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu would be transferred to this consolidated Black city, according to the hon member for False Bay. Today, two years later, there are 100 000 Black people in Khayelitsha, and Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Crossroads are still where they have always been. Moreover, it has been announced that those people can obtain proprietary rights in those areas. The legislation relating to the development of Black communities we already have before us. Those people are not obtaining leasehold rights, Sir, but in fact proprietary rights. Proprietary rights are now being granted to all the people of Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu and Crossroads, and also those of Khayelitsha. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman made a very interesting speech. I believe, however, he will appreciate the fact that I cannot agree with him as far as the content of his speech is concerned. The gravamen of his speech centred on the question of what sort of a mandate the National Party had in order to bring legislation of this nature before this House. Towards the end of his speech he spent a considerable time disinterring old skeletons of speeches made by hon members of the National Party over the years.

All that remains of the National Party now is its skeleton!

Well, it is the hon member’s right to believe that. The point, however, which I should like to make is that there is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with people changing their minds. In fact, I would say it is more logical to be right than to be consistent. Whilst I accept the fact that the NP has been consistently wrong on these matters for many years, they are now no longer being consistently wrong. They have changed their minds and I believe they are somewhat on the right track.

Just tell their supporters that too!

Right. Fine.

The next point I would like to make on the issue raised by the hon member, is that perhaps the NP members themselves have not given serious thought to where their mandate lies. Quite frankly, I believe that they do have a mandate for this change. Fairly recently we had a referendum which approved the tricameral Parliament. All the hon members of this House participated in that referendum on a “yea” or “nay” basis. As a result of the referendum hon members were elected to serve in two other Houses of Parliament. By so doing, the tricameral Parliament was created. The hon members of the CP participated in that referendum, as they are in fact participating in the tricameral parliamentary system. One must therefore assume that they accept that all the hon members of Parliament in all three Houses are actually members of Parliament. I would be inclined to suggest that the mandate comes from the fact that an overwhelming majority of all the hon members of Parliament want this legislation. [Interjections.]

That is where they are excluded! [Interjections.]

Well, it is a matter of opinion. I believe that when there is a Parliament comprising three Houses, one of 80, one of 40 and another of 180 odd, whatever the numbers are, and one finds that there are only perhaps 20 people out of more than 300 people who oppose this legislation, that is a pretty solid mandate. I would be inclined to suggest that if one does not accept that kind of mandate, one may well be in a position where one should not be taking part in Parliament at all. [Interjections.] I would just like to make that particular point.

I do not want to become involved in the personal arguments between hon members of the NP and the CP, but these points have come to my mind and they do give me food for thought.

It has been said by various hon members, particularly by the hon member for Bellville, that this is the most important Bill to be debated in this House for decades. I would not like to say it is the most important Bill that has been debated here in decades. The word “decades” could imply two, three, four, or perhaps more, decades. I will, however, say it is the most important Bill that has been debated in this House since the NP saw the light and became right rather than consistent. This Bill, without any question of doubt, is the Bill that will be responsible for removing the main cornerstone of all apartheid legislation. It must. This Bill, together with the laws being repealed, gets rid of a great deal of the legislation which has been anathema not only to the Black people of South Africa but also to the whole world. However, I would go as far as to make this point: The removal effected by this Bill alone, with the ancillary removal of the laws mentioned in the schedule, will not be sufficient to stop the various countries with whom we trade from imposing sanctions. I accept the fact that we in South Africa have to make our own decisions and that we do not wish to be dictated to by countries outside. However, one must remember that this country in the world of today cannot exist in any reasonable way as an island. We have to be prepared to make appropriate efforts to ensure that even our friends do not have to impose sanctions.

How far are you willing to go with that?

Let me just make this point. The hon member for Rissik asks how far I am willing to go. I will say this: I believe that the CP are right when they say that one can either have apartheid as it was developed or one has to get rid of it as a whole. I am prepared to suggest that they are right in that regard.

All right, then, join us.

I do not believe that one can have a half-apartheid system or a quarter-apartheid system. There has to be a system whereby people learn to live and work together without apartheid. Alternatively, one has to follow the route which the CP is advocating, and have total apartheid. [Interjections.] Insofar as practicalities are concerned, I do not believe that the CP policy will be permitted to exist in the sort of world in which we are living today. I am sorry, but it will not. [Interjections.]

Then you stand for integration.

It is not a question of what one stands for; it is a question of what is right and what is practical. I believe that one has to accept that fact. Moreover, I also believe that the NP is making a big mistake in trotting out their bits of legislation—like a miser dealing out half a cent here and half a cent there—and making a big three-act play out of each piece of legislation they introduce. For goodness sake, why cannot everything that has to be removed, be laid on the Table so that we can get rid of it once and for all? That, to me, seems to be the logical sort of thing to talk about because, if one does that, then creditable Black leaders in this country will be prepared to talk about a future in which Blacks, Whits, and other shades of brown in between, will be able to live and to develop this country together.

All the time we see people looking back over their shoulders at the rest of Africa, and I am as convinced as my hon friends sitting to my immediate right that the story in the rest of Black Africa is a very, very sorry story indeed.

How are you going to prevent that?

However, I believe that if we in South Africa have the guts to face up to the realities of life, then we will not necessarily have to fall into the same sort of shambles as has been the case elsewhere.

Why not? [Interjections.]

I can tell the hon member why not. The reason is very, very clear. South Africa is a very well-developed country. This has admittedly been achieved to a very large extent through White expertise. It is a well-developed country in terms of the production of power and the development of mining, agriculture, business and the like. However, the population ratios are such that I believe the Black man has seen the advantages of the sort of development that the White man can produce. We, in turn, know that we could not have achieved that development without the labour of the Black man as well. However, we have automatically assumed that because the Black man has been a labourer, that is all he can be, and I think that is the mistake we are making. I believe that with the mix that we have in this country, it is possible for us to work together. I also believe however, that it is also necessary for the foreseeable future to allay the fears of certain people and to ensure that those people who may be sharing the corridors of power with us do not abuse that power, and that we have certain protective devices which will have to be worked out between Blacks and White around the conference table, as is in fact being done in the kwaNatal Indaba. I therefore feel that we are too frightened of the future.

If we just look at and fear the way things are in the rest of Africa, then, with our small numbers and with the world situation being as it is at the present moment, we might as well pack up shop and push off now.

Where to?

Anywhere.

There is nowhere to go.

With the sort of fears that small numbers of people have today, there is no future in South Africa. However, if they can rid themselves of those fears and learn to look after themselves and the country together with the other peoples of this country, then they may stand a chance of living here.

I have a family here and I want them to stay here. I have every intention of staying here but I do not believe it can be done on a basis of fear. One has to learn to live with those people with whom one is blessed to coexist.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bill before us is a very important one, and it does remove one of the cornerstones of the apartheid edifice. There is no question about it. It also removes some of the most beastly legislation we have on the Statute Book. It is almost inhuman that people who have been born and who have lived in a country all their lives are restricted in their movements to certain designated places. With the passing of this Bill, this regulation will finally be removed.

As has been indicated, the Act was originally promulgated way back in the early part of the nineteenth century following the abolition of certain slavery Acts. It has been added to and subtracted from over the years ever since. However, with regard to the legislation before the House, I should like to point out that only four of the Acts listed in the schedule which are now being removed predate the coming into power of the NP Government. Thirty of them are Acts and amendments to Acts which have been promulgated since the NP came into power in 1948. We are thus legislating for the removal of 30 out of 34 NP-created Acts. Therefore, I grant that they have seen the light! I am not going to castigate people for seeing the light. I would rather say: “Jolly good show! See some more light!” I would rather encourage them to introduce more Bills of this nature so that we can do the same sort of thing. [Interjections.]

As I have said, this Bill makes people free men in the country in which they are born. I admit that it does not give them jobs or houses but it does give them the right to move into areas where they can gradually get themselves a home together. It becomes the duty of the hon the Minister concerned to ensure that land is made available for the people who gravitate from the rural areas to the towns and that they are housed, if not in proper housing conditions, at least in a reasonably hygienic way.

I believe this is a sound sort of situation. If this had been done years ago, the situation at Crossroads, Mamelodi and other similar towns to which other hon members have referred would not have existed today. I believe if one had kept pace with the development, one would have been able to control it, and this sort of trouble would never have occurred. I thus believe that sound progress in this regard is now being made.

The idea of having measures in the Bill to allow for the creation of control bodies for these “shack towns”—call them that if you like—which will perhaps develop into permanent residential areas is also a sound principle because it will create formally recognised bodies to deal with the officials and with the State, whoever the State may be. People who understand the problems and heartaches of the people who are living there will serve on these bodies. In other words, we will not have the sort of situation where bulldozers are sent in at the drop of a hat. If there are problems, somebody will be able to discuss the issue on a properly formalised basis.

Therefore, we feel that this legislation has a great deal to recommend it. We will be supporting it. I just want to touch again on the subject with which I started, namely the mandate of the NP for passing this particular Bill, and say that I am certain that it will obtain a 100% support in both the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. I believe there will be about an 85% support in this House. If that is not good enough as a mandate, then I do not know what is!

With those few words, we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Umbilo for his support for this Bill. There is not much he said that I want to comment on. He said he thought that our social problems in regard to urbanisation and squatter conditions could have been controlled if it had not been for this legislation. I think that is an over simplistic view, and I think that even after this legislation has been abolished we are still going to encounter many problems in future.

One point made by the hon member with which I agree was that he had no objection if people changed their standpoint and that it was in fact positive to be able to change one’s standpoint when one gained new insights. Of course I am of the opinion that the only person who can say that he has never changed his standpoint in his life, is the man who has never learned anything. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Umbilo will probably pardon me if I focus my attention on the hon member for Kuruman a little today. There are things I want to discuss a little further with him. In any event, it is they who are opposing this legislation. Indeed, he stated the standpoint by calling out that we ought to be ashamed of the legislation before the House today. Allow me to state the other side of the matter. I do not think we ought to be ashamed to say that we were wrong in the past. On the contrary, I think we must speak candidly, particularly when measures have become obsolete.

You must not forget to afford the voters an opportunity to pass their judgement as well.

The voters will pass their judgement but that is a point I shall deal with later. That is actually the second point I wanted to put to the hon member.

He adopted the standpoint that Africa has costly lessons to teach us from its history. Everywhere in Africa where the White people have shared power, the Black people have taken over. The hon member must tell this House what countries he was referring to. If he says everywhere in Africa, was he thinking of Kenya, Zambia, and such countries?

Zimbabwe, Mozambique …

The hon member for Rissik says yes, Zimbabwe.

Let us first go back for a while and consider the first two countries he mentioned, Kenya and Zambia. These countries are out and out colonies of Great Britain. Power was vested in Great Britain, the United Kingdom and its Parliament. Those countries were therefore out and out colonies. [Interjections.] The hon member said they were White people. Yes, it was White people who had the power.

What the hon member is actually saying is that the moment they began to think of shifting power to the people who were present there and to remove control of those colonies from overseas, away from the United Kingdom, and trying to exercise power in the colonies through the people living there, they made a mistake. By implication the English had to keep on governing over a distance of 5 000 miles, for then it would have been to the benefit of the people who found themselves in Kenya. Is that what the hon member said. He is now sitting as quietly as a mouse, but I should very much like … [Interjections.]

Why do you not get back to Rhodesia?

We can discuss Rhodesia and any other state, but we are dealing throughout with a fundamental point of departure. Are those hon members really interested in the welfare of other people, or are they only interested in their own welfare?

The welfare of everyone!

The hon member says the welfare of everyone and we shall come back to that in a moment.

I first want to go back a little in history. The hon member referred to this. [Interjections.] During the speech of the hon member Prof Olivier the hon member for Rissik stood up and asked him whether he thought we also had a responsibility to the BLC countries. He mentioned others as well.

You did not formulate my question correctly.

Does the hon member wish to state the question again if he thinks I formulated it incorrectly?

Mr Chairman, in view of the standpoints on urbanisation, will the hon member admit that urbanisation is also occurring in South Africa through inhabitants of Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Lesotho.

The hon member can look up his Hansard and he will see that he did put the question like that; that is correct. He went on, however, and asked whether we also had a responsibility towards these countries. The hon member Prof Olivier reacted to that and said he did not think we had a primary responsibility towards them. That is actually what I want to associate myself with. I think we do have a responsibility to them as well.

I want to go back in history, because the hon member for Kuruman is so obsessed with history. He will recall that it was NP policy to have the former protectorates—that is the present BLC countries—incorporated in the Republic and how Advocate Strijdom fought for that and how Dr Verwoerd stated the standpoint time and again that England should hand over the protectorates to South Africa so that they could be incorporated. In addition the argument was advanced that at least the 13% of Black land would immediately become 50% and then it would be fairer, for they were part of this country.

One could put the Swazi’s with the Swazi’s and the Tswanas with the Tswanas.

The hon member must give me an opportunity to argue about an historical event. For a long time that was the standpoint of this party. I looked up the speeches of Dr Verwoerd only, a number of which are very conveniently summed up in Verwoerd aan die Woord. I am referring specifically to his speech of 12 November 1958 at the Transvaal NP Congress. In it this standpoint was very explicitly stated. The policy was spelt out and the correct thing that had to be done was indicated, namely that England should transfer the protectorates to South Africa. As regards the Transvaal NP Congress, that congress should be seen in the light of the background of the people who established the policy in those days.

On 20 May 1959 legislation was being debated in this Parliament—in this Chamber in fact. One of the speakers was Dr Verwoerd; and the legislation was the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Bill. On 20 May 1959 Dr Verwoerd stood up here and diverged completely from his policy. As all of us had done, Dr Verwoerd had seen how the winds of change were blowing in Africa. He saw what had happened in Ghana and he had observed the entire decolonisation of Africa. He rose to his feet here and said it had in fact been a “dignified” (deftige) event that the BLC countries had become independent. He said it was according to the pattern of the entire movement in Africa and that we should change our policy too. During the discussion of the Bill Dr Verwoerd then explained his vision of independence. On that occasion he stated it as his basic policy and he elaborated on it in further speeches.

At the Transvaal NP Congress he came forward and said our policy was one thing. Six months later—to be precise six months and eight days later—he adopted the opposite standpoint in this Parliament.

However, he never impaired the self-determination of the Whites.

We are talking about a question of a reversal of policy in respect of an absolutely essential standpoint in regard to Statecraft. That is the point I want to make.

No, that is not correct.

Of course it is correct. In this hon member’s judgement it did not impair the self-determination of the Whites. In the judgement of many others, however, it was a cardinal mistake to embark on that course because it placed the Whites under pressure. In theory he could have had all the self-determination in the world, but he could manuoevre himself into a situation in which he did not have a hope of surviving. I want to make this point against the background of the constant cry of “mandate, mandate, mandate”. A government is returned to office to govern, and from time to time it has to take decisions to the best of its ability and as it sees fit.

Based on its principles.

Yes, based on its principles. If we have to talk about principles again, let us go back to Dr Verwoerd’s principles. In 1961 when Dr Verwoerd—I think it was in April—debated the same matter of independence in the Budget debate, he argued that we should consider independent states, because there were two things we could not get past. The one principle, he said, was that we could not discriminate, because it was unacceptable and we adopted a principle of non-discrimination. That is why, he said, we had to seek it out. The second principle was that we could not allow one group to dominate another. Because that was our point of departure, he argued, we had to change the policy. This argument of his, however, represented a complete reversal of his old policy, but it was done on the ground of what were to him existing principles. I want to tell hon members that we do not want one group to dominate another, and it remains our principles—and as Dr Verwoerd stated it at the time—that discrimination is unacceptable. Hon members should go and read it, and they will concede that I am correct. We are concerned here with how we see those principles applicable at a specific juncture.

While the hon member is advancing that argument, Sir, I want to ask him whether he agrees with the hon member for Bellville that we are finally burying apartheid today.

Sir, I think he is being a little hasty, because if we are burying apartheid today, we are burying it while it is still half alive. However, it has received a heavy blow, which I hope it never recovers from. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell hon members that under influx control measures an ambivalence began to develop in the whole position of the Blacks.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must not talk while I am talking. I would be pleased if he would now give me a chance to talk. I gave them an opportunity to put their questions.

Yes, but you make it so interesting.

Yes, but then the hon member must listen. He must not talk. [Interjections.]

If one buries things alive, one tortures them. You must not torture apartheid. [Interjections.]

Sir, I just want to make the point that influx control, as it has been applied since the 1950s and particularly during the 1970s, caused an ambivalence to develop among the Blacks. On the one hand we placed tremendous emphasis on growth in urban areas, but on the other hand we needed Black labour to achieve it. Hon members will recall what tension arose when people had to come to the urban areas to render services and return again—the entire commuter and migrant labour question that was frequently debated.

The second question was the development of political domination (baasskap’) which was a point of departure while one at the same time tried to get past it by toying with citizenship concepts’ an aspect in regard to which we still have legislation before us which we hope to be able to dispose of before we leave. This duality caused the “myth of ‘man of two worlds’ exploded by the emergence of ‘man of no world’”, as it was stated in a publication edited by Herman Giliomee and Lawrence Schlemmer entitled Up against the Fences. This is the essential problem which developed in regard to the Blacks. They found themselves in two worlds and ultimately saw that they did not fit in anywhere, and nowhere were they granted a world as they experienced it from their position and their view. If we were to put ourselves in their shoes, we would have come to understand something of this.

Perhaps we could glance at a few statistics and I do not want to bore hon members with them. In the first half of the 1970s—the hon member for Bellville quoted more recent figures—an average of 542 000 Black people per year were prosecuted. That is more than one every minute of the day and night year in and year out. In the 70 years up to the present, more than 17 million Black people were prosecuted under this legislation. This says something, and if our eyes are not opened when we look at this picture, I do not know whether we do not perhaps deserve to be buried with apartheid.

Against this background I want to say that under this Government, with President Botha as leader, a reversal in approach occurred that had been necessary for a long time. Principles were really restored in practice so as to seek alternatives that would give expression to fundamental premises. We are engaged in a process.

When we talk about a mandate we must come back to see what the meaning of a mandate is. The hon members of the CP must draw the distinction between the present State President and Dr Verwoerd. At least the State President returns to his congresses regularly, but Dr Verwoerd mainly did things on his own. To this very day he is praised by hon members of the CP for what he did.

He did not deviate from principles.

No, and we did not deviate from principles either.

Come now, Wynand! [Interjections.]

We can argue about that a thousand times. Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another again in regard to principles. If the hon members speak about policy strategies as being principles, we have in fact deviated from them, and done so substantially.

They are confusing policy and principles.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the NP deviated from the programme of principles it adhered to during the 1981 election?

We adjusted and deviated from certain things which were stated in the twelve-point plan. That is most certainly the case. When hon members talk about a programme of principles, they must distinguish between things which I want to call policy principles—that is therefore a choice of strategies, of what moves to make—and things which are fundamental and universal and always have value. [Interjections.] Those hon members—the hon member for Rissik will in all honesty concede this—also deviated from principles as they saw it, or what I call policy principles. After all the hon member has a completely new approach in respect of Indian and Coloured homelands.

Now he is not even listening.

Is the hon member for Rissik trying to tell me that the policy principles of the NP under the twelve-point plan included a Coloured homeland and that that was one of its policy principles?

The principle is separation.

Order! I think that the hon members for Randburg and Rissik are conversing with one another at present. The hon member for Randburg may proceed.

The hon members must not talk about separation as a principle. Separation was never, but never a principle. It was a way of applying something. Various steps were taken. Prior to 1959, for example, Dr Verwoerd had a completely different view of the BLS countries compared to the new view which he subsequently held. According to the new view separation was placed in a new perspective, and it was in fact accepted, while these areas were earlier seen as a unit and they in fact wanted them incorporated.

I do not want to go back and dabble in history all the time; all I want is for us to thrash out this matter with one another. Actually I want to come back to the problems in our country, specifically those concerning the Black people, and I want to refer to the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Hon members are all acquainted with the inquiry into the poor white issue during the late 1920s and particularly at the beginning of the 1930s. I think hon members would find it worthwhile to take another look at the report of the Carnegie Commission. If that is too much trouble for hon members, they need only read Dr Dian Joubert’s little book entitled Toe Witmense arm was in the series Brandpunte. There they will read about the urbanisation process of the Afrikaners, their poverty, the upliftment processes and what leaders of that time said they expected as their right. Hon members can also look at the standpoints adopted by the Government at the time.

Hon members must also take a look at the latest Carnegie Conference. I think it was in April 1984, but the inquiry began as long ago as 1980. It was sponsored by the same corporation in New York, and poverty was examined in a broad context. This second report did not want to make the same mistake as the first one by looking at a specific group. A wider field than South Africa only was examined; including the BLS countries, Mozambique, Angola, Namabia, and other places. This was done in order to obtain a broader perspective, and the process is still in progress.

When we speak about people’s problems I ask that we be prepared to look back upon our own history, learn from it and seek positive answers in future.

A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the Government concerning things of the past. I think this is unfair because every head of government forms his government in his time. It is the same party who places the head of government in his position, and I think the party must accept the blame where necessary, but we must not complain about it. We must keep on looking forward to what new governments do in their time. I think this Government endures too much criticism and receives insufficient praise.

If one considers the legislation now before us, I think the insertion of section 6A in the principal Act is a particularly positive development. It deals with the definition of areas. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has already intimated that he is engaged in an inquiry into land identification for housing for Black people. This is an extremely urgent requirement and it goes much further than the areas created by means of section 6A.

We are also awaiting the report of the President’s Council on the Group Areas Act. I do not think we should commence a debate on that matter before we have heard from the President’s Council, but these are going to be relevant matters.

We shall also have to consider the overall strategies, for example the making available of funds and job creation programmes, but we shall have to do our share and demand from the Government that it, as Government, also play its part in the same way as the government in the 1930s played its part when it was confronted by the same situation, but one involving other people.

The hon member for Sasolburg asked the hon member Prof Olivier in a question whether the Government’s measures were adopted out of hatred for the Black people or out of compassion for the White people. I have a problem with a question like that. If one talks about compassion, it must be compassion for all people, because if one acts with compassion only for White people and hurts Black people in the process, then one is not really talking about compassion for White people, but of an unfair advantage. I think that is an improper and unfair advantage. If one has compassion, one has it for all people.

I should like to quote to this House three passages on this subject from the book Out of Solitude by Henri Nouwen. He writes in a chapter entitled “Care”:

He says furthermore, and I think we should take cognisance of this because it is extremely important:

I want to quote one final sentence which appears on page 45 of the book:

I would like it to be possible that we can also cry out with those in need.

With this legislation we are getting rid of discrimination. Hon members who are unhappy about this must take a look at places where most of them have probably never been. They must take a look at “Soweto-by the-Sea” near Port Elizabeth, and at the situation in Crossroads. They must also take a look at Katlehong, where there are 18 000 dwellings, but in the backyards of which an additional 36 000 shacks have been erected.

You want to squeeze in even more!

Yes, I want to ensure there is housing for them and that it should be developed.

Out of whose pockets?

It comes out of the pocket of the State, from the people themselves and from the community who can care for people. If “out of whose pockets must it come” is the point of departure, the hon member for Jeppe must go back to the Carnegie inquiry. He must read Dr Verwoerd’s speeches of that time to find out what demands he made on the State before he became a member of the Government. [Interjections.] He must read what the Government of that time did. [Interjections.] The hon member must look at the percentages of budgets allocated at that time for uplifting people from poverty, compare it with the corresponding figures for today and stop asking with whose money this is going to be done today. [Interjections.]

We are getting rid of discrimination and burying apartheid. Those hon members can weep and wail, rant and rave as much as they like.

Mr Chairman, obviously the hon member still wants certain measures abolished in order to kill apartheid completely. Can he tell us what he still wants abolished?

We shall still discuss and debate quite a lot of legislation that has already been tabled. If he has not taken cognisance of that, he does not belong in this place.

Do you include the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.]

We are still awaiting a report on the Group Areas Act, and we shall debate it.

I want to know whether you want it abolished.

The hon members of the CP can rant and rave, and weep and wail as much as they like, but we shall continue to get rid of discrimination so that all people will gain recognition as people. [Interjections.]

Be honest and tell us what you stand for.

We are going to be jubilant every time we succeed in getting rid of things that should not be there. We are going ahead positively to create a society in which all of us can live together, without discrimination without one dominating the other and in which we will feel really secure.

On the road ahead we will perhaps shed tears, but they will be tears of joy and gratitude.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randburg proposed a very interesting definition of “mandate”. He says a mandate embodies principles, but he adds that it is a matter of the way in which the party in power sees it. The hon member for Bellville says a mandate is justice, and the hon member for Umbilo says it is something about which the elected representatives themselves decide.

I should also like to venture a definition of “mandate”. A mandate is a contract concluded between the electorate and a candidate.

And then you left!

I shall be coming to that, but I have not yet said there would be a Black State President in South Africa, as the hon member for Randburg did in Canada. He has not yet been repudiated on that score.

[Inaudible.]

He said he did not say so in Canada, but in South Africa.

You are looking for trouble, Wynand!

I now want to ask the hon member for Randburg frankly: Is he in favour of our having a Black State President?

No, Sir, I am in favour of everyone being able to participate at all levels.

A Black person can therefore become State President. Does the hon member not object to that? [Interjections.]

Every now and then the hon member for Brits makes his little contribution. I want to remind him of the fact that the hon member for Soutpansberg challenged him, on my behalf, to appear with him on a public platform in Brits to debate alleged falsifications perpetrated by the hon member for Brits. Here, while everyone was listening to him, he accepted the challenge with bravado. I have written him two letters in which I asked him: “Come along, old quivering Jan Grobler, let us get on with it!” I wrote him two letters inviting the hon member for Brits to appear with me on that public platform, but he has not had the courage to reply setting a date. [Interjections.] I now say: If he does not have the courage to stick to the challenge he accepted, he must keep his mouth shut. [Interjections.]

I now come back to the question of the mandate. A mandate is an agreement between voters and candidates. During an election candidates draw up a document which they normally called a manifesto, and in 1981 the NP presented such a manifesto to the electorate. The electorate could then choose between the manifestos presented to them by the HNP, the PFP, the NP and the NRP. The majority of the electorate accepted the programme of principles of the NP, and now the NP is contractually bound to that document embodying its mandate. At the moment, however, the NP has two mandates, because it also held a referendum to which we were opposed, but which the NP won. That referendum dealt with the Constitution, Act 110 of 1983. In the Constitution provision is made for a tricameral Parliament for which the NP does, in fact, have a mandate. We do not dispute that. Its other mandate…

Order! That referendum had nothing to do with influx control. I therefore cannot permit a debate about the referendum.

I am not going to refer back to the referendum again, Sir.

Order! The hon member must discuss the Bill now.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The question here is—in the debate as a whole—whether the NP has a mandate to abolish influx control or not. As far as that is concerned, the present argument involves the definition of a mandate. That is all.

Order! I am quite aware of the fact that the debate dealt with the question of whether there was a mandate to have influx control abolished or not, and I was prepared to allow arguments in that regard. In fact, I have done so, but I just want to point out to hon members that the referendum may not be debated now, because it was concerned with the tricameral Parliament. The hon member for Jeppe may proceed.

Sir, I see you are genuinely dismayed, and I shall therefore not return to the referendum. I am merely talking to the hon members for Randburg, Umbilo and Bellville about what a mandate is.

I shall now come to the point by stating that the NP is committed to its twelve-point plan. That is its mandate. It has no other mandate. In point 3 of that mandate its linking-up policy is ratified. This means that as far as the so-called urban Blacks are concerned, the NP has only one mandate and that is that those Blacks are not allowed to flock to these areas. They must exercise their political rights in their own States. That is the NP’s mandate; it has no other mandate. If the NP were now to abolish influx control, it would be acting in conflict with its mandate. It would then be acting unconstitutionally and would be breaking the contract that exists between the electorate and the elected representatives. Then these elected National Party MPs will be heaping coals of fire upon their heads by acting in conflict with the mandate they have obtained from the electorate.

The hon member for Umbilo said the 308 members of Parliament sitting here could seemingly, as he put it, “themselves generate a mandate”. That is constitutional nonsense. The hon members sitting here have specifically obtained a mandate from the electorate. That is a directive which they must implement. They surely cannot give themselves a mandate to extend the directive.

The first point I therefore want to make is that the NP definitely has no mandate to do away with this influx control. If the NP were to do so, it would be acting unconstitutionally and breaking the contract it has entered into with the electorate.

With pangs of anguish I want to congratulate hon leftist members, in particular the PFP and the leftists in the NP, on their great achievement. They have convinced the mighty National Party to topple another basic principle, another pillar of the edifice. The hon member Prof Olivier—if I understood him correctly—said in connection with reform that peaceful co-existence and stability would result from these reforms. He also said that if reforms did not take place there would be conflict. That is what I understood him to say. I now want to refer the hon member Prof Olivier to the very interesting article of Prof M T W Arnheim in the latest issue of Die Ekonoom. On page 15 there is the following:

That is what is happening here now:

Then Prof Arnheim goes on to state:

I quote further what Prof Arnheim said:

A very fitting comment—

Mr Chairman, I want to quote another brief passage from this article by prof Arnheim:

This is for the edification of the hon member Prof Olivier:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bellville said apartheid has now become a myth. I put it to him that his mandate has therefore now become a myth. He added that we would still be debating the social and political implications of the abolition of influx control for a very long time yet. I put it to him that if an election does not take place and the Conservative Party come into power, it will not be long before he is conducting his debate under the jurisdiction of a Black President.

The hon member for Kuruman did a wonderful job of depicting the National Party’s unbelievable credibility crisis. At one stage it was actually comical to see him indicate here how one NP speaker after another had adopted certain standpoints in the past on the basis of so-called principles which had subsequently disappeared like mist in the morning sunshine. It was specifically the hon member for Bloemfontein North, when he was still chief information officer of the National Party, who issued a warning indicating that if one accepted power-sharing it would lead to the destruction of the Whites. He was therefore saying that if we introduced power-sharing, the Whites would be destroyed. Today however, he is saying that power-sharing is good medicine. The hon member for Bloemfontein North’s credibility has suffered to such an extent that when he says good afternoon to me, I first have to check the position of the sun.

How very original!

Mr Chairman, today is a very remarkable day. The National Party is toppling the umpteenth pillar of the edifice of separation. The National Party is contemptuous of the mandate which it received from the electorate and is acting in conflict with the will of the voters.

What is interesting, however, is that no one knows where the National Party is heading. The National Party has become a traveller without a destination.

Gosh, you are being even more original than you were a moment ago!

Influx control must also be abolished now. There is, however, no definite substitute for it. The immeasurable consequences of the abolition of influx control are quite calmly ignored on the strength of the unreliable promise that someone or other will do something about it some time or other. Mr Chairman, do you know what this step reminds me of? The National Party is abolishing influx control, but does not yet have anything definite to put in its place. There is talk of legislation and of measures which are in the pipeline. We have not, however, seen any sign of it. This puts in mind of an acrobat in the circus swinging at the end of a single rope, high above the ground. That single rope is influx control. If that acrobat were to let go of that rope, he would not know whether there was another rope for him to grab hold of.

But, Koos, you know how to swing on a rope, don’t you! [Interjections.]

Yes, I know how to swing, Mr Chairman. Amongst other things I did a lot of swinging on a rope with that hon member at George. He got such a fright, standing there next to his red car, that all one saw was a clean pair of heels!

That is untrue and you know it! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, this is a remarkable day for the National Party. It is drawing another contemptuous line through its once illustrious past. I should now like to have a very serious talk with the hon the Minister. I want to ask him: Quo vadis? Where is he taking South Africa?

To Mandela! [Interjections.]

What are the hon the Minister’s intentions as far as South Africa is concerned? It seems as if it is his intention to destroy South Africa. I am not saying he wants to do so, but that is what it looks like.

At this stage the simple fact of the matter is that in economic terms South Africa is bankrupt. It is a fact, too, that the security position has deteriorated to such an extent that the safety of the ordinary citizens in South Africa can no longer be guaranteed by the State. Overseas pressure against us is mounting. In the political sphere no Government supporter knows any longer where the Government is heading. The dilemma in which we find ourselves today is so serious that an uninformed person would very easily think that the “no” vote had won the referendum.

Now influx control must also be abolished. Let me tell the hon the Minister that another pillar supporting the edifice is being toppled. This is another step nearer to complete chaos. The conditions in our country under the NP have become so grave that yesterday Dr Willem de Klerk, in a frank and panicstricken statement, made the following acknowledgement in Rapport of 8 June 1986:

Influx control must also go. Chaos creeps closer. Dr De Klerk’s outburst in yesterday’s Rapport is a cry of panic and desperation. In the light of that, let me ask the hon the Minister what his plans are. Where is he taking South Africa? The hon the Minister must know that he must accept responsibility for the new dispensation. He is the one who initiated the transformations that are taking place, which are actually transmogrifications. He is the one who answered all the questions at the congresses! He is the one who has built up the powerful “empire” all around him. He must take the responsibility for the new dispensation.

If it works, he will get the medal. If it does not, there are great problems in store for him. [Interjections.]

Don’t worry, Koos!

I won’t.

Now I want to put a very serious question to the hon the Minister. I want to ask him whether he personally agrees with Prof Dr Adrion König of Unisa. In yesterday’s Rapport, that of 8 June 1986, there is an article written by Pieter Schoombee of Johannesburg. The headlines were: “NG-kerk moet op sy knieë oor apartheid.” and “Professor vra dag van verootmoediging.” Let me quote a few passages from the report:

I quote further:

The concluding paragraph reads:

I now want to put a very serious question to the hon the Minister: Does he agree with Prof König?

I am not allowed to answer now.

No, I do not want to enter into a dispute with the hon the Minister now, but I have previously put questions to him.

I shall reply to your question when I reply to the debate!

All the hon the Minister needs to do is say yes or no. It is simple. [Interjections.] I must conclude that the hon the Minister perhaps agrees with Prof König.

The CP’s standpoint is that the Afrikaners, the Whites, do not in any way need a day of prayer, as requested by Prof König.

I now want to come to my concern at the abolition of influx control. Let me tell the hon the Minister that my concern is that the Government’s so-called reform campaign and the abolition of influx control means that South Africa is now also adopting the disastrous course adopted by Black Africa. I should like to lift the veil slightly on what is happening in Black Africa. As far back as 14 May 1980 the newspaper Jeune Afrique had the following to say about a statement by Mr Edem Kodjo, Secretary of the OAU.

In what language?

He said it in French, and if the hon member so desires, I shall quote it to him in French too. [Interjections.] I quote:

According to Mr Kodjo:

Mr Kodjo then said those famous words with which I want to issue a very strong warning today in connection with the abolition of influx control. Mr Kodjo said—and he ought to have known, because he was Secretary General of the OAU:

He went on to say:

Of apartheid?

No, not of apartheid. The hon member has now put his foot in it. [Interjections.] Black Africa is in the process of dying, and whilst we were adopting the policy of separate development in South Africa, we had economic prosperity. There was little pressure from abroad. There was stability in the country. There was order in the country—surely that is a fact. Is it not an incontrovertible fact. [Interjections.] The problems developed, did they not, after we began with the tricameral Parliament. The hon member is now asking me, in connection with Black Africa, whether apartheid was the cause. No, Sir, the story of Africa is a very tragic one.

They are so free that they have nothing more to lose!

In the very recent past there was a report by Mrs Marcelle Lenz-Cornett, a member of the European Parliament. She set out the consequences of the departure of the Whites from Africa. In describing the situation a few weeks ago, she used words such as anarchy, war, genocide, coups d’état, slaughter, famine, corruption, tyrrany and bankruptcy. She argues the question of Africa’s future and then quotes what the president of Kenya’s reserve bank, Mr Philip Ndegwa, had to say:

Let me warn against the disastrous course adopted by Africa which, it is becoming clearer to me by the day, we are going to adopt. The point is that the abolition of influx control is a clear, definite step in the direction taken by Black Africa.

In Black Africa there are 55 States with approximately 600 million people. There are 2 000 different languages and cultures. Almost 400 million of those 600 million people live in poverty. We are now speaking of realities. Here are the realities. Within 10 years from now 80% of Black Africa will be living in poverty. Forty per cent of the population of Africa are unemployed at the moment. In Kenya 500 000 new workers are entering the labour market each year, but there are only 20 000 jobs available. The population increase figure for Black Africa is the highest in the world, with each Black woman averaging seven children. Famine is taking over in Africa. Hundreds of millions of people are starving, and who must supply those needs?

The hon member for Randburg argued with me a moment ago by saying there were houses in Katlehong and such places, but in the backyards there are still thousands more. He nevertheless wants more and more people to come in and disturb the orderly set-up. When I asked him who should feed them and who should pay for it, he took it amiss of me.

The UN must supply 37 million tons of food per annum within the next five years. I could go on giving hon members figures to illustrate what would happen if we adopted the course adopted by Africa. I want to lodge a plea with the hon the Minister today not to allow South Africa to adopt the disastrous course adopted by Black Africa, because with the measures he is adopting, and the reckless way he is abolishing one aspect after another of the policy of separation, without replacing them with anything else, he is creating tremendous uncertainty. This puts us on the course adopted by Black Africa.

I now want to come to a letter that appeared in last Saturday’s issue of Die Burger. The hon the Minister will know what I am talking about, because he replied in writing. I am referring to a letter entitled “Waarheen met eie Gebiede” which appeared in Die Burger on 7 June. I probably read that letter through ten times. I gained the impression that the writer of the letter, who wrote under the name “Vrae wat pla”, was a member of the NP, an intellectual and a very responsible person.

He comes from Stellenbosch.

Yes, he comes from Stellenbosch. In a very seemly fashion he presented certain problems to the NP Government. He began by referring to the State President, Mr Botha, who has now been serving for 50 years, and then said:

He is referring to P W Botha:

Speaking about the reform programme, he said:

He then says:

Order! Is there any reference to influx control in the letter from which the hon member for Jeppe is now quoting?

Yes, Sir, you must just exercise a little patience. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe may continue.

I quote further from the letter:

He is referring to the unrest and the reform programme itself. Then he put the question that everyone in South Africa is asking and that every foreign journalist who comes here asks one, and that is: “Where is it all going to end?” He says:

And here it comes, Mr Chairman—

And that is a warning, too, by a member of the NP! He goes on to state:

He tabulates the objections against the abolition of influx control. He goes on to state:

At present we are, after all, seeing it happen very clearly here in the Black residential areas in the Cape. I understand that at the moment, as we are sitting here, there are tremendous problems in Nyanga. I understand Nyanga is in flames.

Crossroads.

My apologies, Crossroads.

The writer of this letter then asks:

[Interjections.] The writer of this letter, a good Nationalist, asks:

My question to the hon the Minister is: What further instalments lie in store for us? ‘[Interjections.] Where is the Government taking South Africa? I have asked this question three or four times, but we do not get a reply. No one gets a reply to that! Does the NP have a hidden, secret agenda? Does it know what it is doing? Is it engaged in some strange activity? Can one give them recognition for any kind of planning?

The only person who has thus far dared to tell the truth about the abolition of measures such as that of influx control has been the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I asked the hon the Minister of National Education a question in this regard, but like a very good scrum-half he very adroitly dodged the question.

With his clever use of words!

No, not even with semantics. He simply was not there! I asked him whether he agreed with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that in the light of the continual abolition of measures such as this, and because we are living together in one country, we would unavoidably have a Black State President. Surely that is a simple question! I think the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs just did a bit of sound arithmetic, because in one South Africa, 85% of the population would be Blacks and 15% Whites. According to Grade-1 arithmetical standards, 85% is more than 15%. And surely the 85% would elect the State President. I am therefore now putting the same question to the hon the Minister of National Education who has been kind enough to listen so attentively to my intelligent speech. [Interjections.] At the time he did not answer me stating whether he agreed with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Does he not want to answer me now?

Your level of political development is also a Grade 1 level.

Where does one get better proof of a level of political development than that of someone who aspires to become State President? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of National Education wants to become State President and I think he will possibly succeed.

No, Chris will make it.

Will the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning be the successful one? We shall have to see.

The hon the Minister of National Education, who wants to become State President, cannot answer a Grade 1 question. I put the very important question to him that everyone is asking in South Africa today, and that is whether the NP’s measures make provision for our having a Black State President. The hon the Minister must answer yes or no.

I have answered you.

Answer again.

Hon members can therefore see why it is he is working out his notice in Vereeniging.

I want to continue by pinpointing what I consider to be the very gist of the political debate in South Africa. I would really appreciate it if the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would give me an answer in this regard. With the abolition of one measure after another—and now these influx control measures—I think that the question of the protection of minority groups has become the central issue. I quote again from Die Burger of 7 June 1986 in which the writer of the letter also said the following:

I now want to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning how are they going to protect those interests. The hon the Minister replied to this, and one can detect some progress, because for the first time he uttered words such as love, negotiation, reconcilliation and similar semantic variations, mentioning two specific points. The first is, and I quote:

He also referred to other “judicial mechanisms” that could perhaps also be employed. Are there any further mechanisms? The hon the Minister has now come to the point of being able to say that this could be entrenched in a constitution and in judicial mechanisms. Are there any additional safety measures that the hon the Minister has in mind? The PFP has mentioned a few other measures in terms of which they want to protect minority groups. I am now merely asking the hon the Minister whether there are any more such measures. The hon the Minister just stares at me. Gosh! [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this Bill has brought us to the point where we are dealing with a situation which goes back over many decades of South African history. We had legislation on influx control amongst other things, to try and control a situation, but perhaps it is a good thing at this stage to think back for just a moment to a measure which was passed by this Parliament and the NP in 1925. I think the hon members of the CP will be familiar with this measure. It was known as poll tax, according to which all adult Black men had to pay £1.0.0 per year in tax so that they could at least be partially involved in the economic system of the rest of South Africa. Through that system of poll tax inhabitants of the Black areas were obliged to work for cash wages to be allowed into White areas.

Later on that measure was apparently so successful that more Blacks were absorbed into the economic stream than could be practically handled. Later on we had the squatter system according to which many of the Blacks who still lived on the farms, worked for the farmers for six months in exchange for amongst other things the housing they were provided with, and were free for six months either not to work at all, or to become involved in the economy in the metropolitan areas by means of job opportunities.

†Influx control was not intended initially as a purely negative measure. It was also an attempt to promote employment stability for those Blacks who were already in regular employment. We were dealing primarily with unskilled workers, and because we had no equitable wage and employment protection, the uncontrolled influx of large numbers of unskilled workers was seen as a phenomenon that could undermine the wage and employment stability of those workers who were already in employment.

*The former Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster, tried at that time to have influx control revised. He knew that this was a system which could not be maintained and which would have to be revised. That was when Mr Vorster, who with the chief ministers of the national states …

Oh, please man, do stop referring to John Vorster so often. Why do you not say what you think?

Order! The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

It was Mr John Vorster who then arranged for the chief ministers of the national states to form a committee themselves to investigate the possible revision of legislation concerning influx control. The chief ministers of the Black states—I think Chief Minister Buthelezi refused to serve on the committee—did in fact form a committee, and efforts were made to come up with proposals to substitute influx control. But those efforts were unsuccessful.

The fact is, however, it was realised that influx control, as it was applied at that time, was just not working in practice. Later on efforts were made to control the outflow from Black areas. But that did not work either.

Even with Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and Venda gaining independence, about 50 agreements were entered into with each which included labour agreements, amongst other things. The necessity of creating labour opportunities for the Blacks of the independent countries, was therefore recognised.

The hon member for Kuruman spoke of Transkei’s big ideal. He said the people of Transkei were very grateful for the fact that they could become a free people. In a certain sense that is correct. But I want to ask—the hon member for Kuruman could perhaps reply to my question, but I doubt it—what this status of being a free people offered Transkei and Ciskei to keep their citizens within their borders. Dr Malan said: “So min as wat jy die see met ‘n lepel kan droogskep, sal jy nasionalisme keer” and that is just how unlikely the possibility is of stopping the Blacks of Transkei and Ciskei who cannot find any job opportunities there of going to places where they think there may possibly be job opportunities for them. [Interjections.] It is simply impossible to stop them. And this does not have anything to do with a lack of control either. It was a physical impossibility to stop those people, who belonged to a free people, from leaving their country to come here to the Western Cape in search of job opportunities, although these were not always available.

The hon member for Barberton—he is not here at the moment—is aware of the fact that when there was a possibility of unification between kaNgwane and Swaziland years ago, the main stumbling-block for the people of kaNgwane was the fact that as citizens of kaNgwane they had the right to come and look for work in South Africa. What led to them refusing to enter into unification with Swaziland, was the fact that if kaNgwane and Swaziland were to become one, they would have to share that right and compete with the citizens of Swaziland. The citizens of kaNgwane were not prepared to do this. That was the main stumbling-block in the path of possible unification between kaNgwane and Swaziland.

The whole matter, the search for work and the desire to have the right to look for work where there is development, is surely one of the most important factors which makes it completely impossible simply to stop people by means of legal influx control measures from coming to places, where they see there could possibly be job opportunities. Just as one cannot stop the South Easter with wire gauze, so one cannot use barbed wire to stop these people from wanting to come to places where they see development taking place and a possibility of job opportunities. [Interjections.]

There are hundreds of thousands of Blacks who are prosecuted annually for contravening the influx control measures. The prisons were filled to bursting and overflowed with criminals convicted on technicalities who had fled from the misery of poverty to the cities and metropolitan areas in the hope of lessening their misery. They saw their way clear to serving prison sentence after prison sentence, rather than returning to their free fatherland where there were inssufficient job opportunities for them.

I also want to touch on a second aspect here. This is a problem we come up against in South Africa, because in practice in South Africa we deal with the full implications of a Third World and a First World situation. I want to refer to the hypocrisy and the callous lack of interest shown in the welfare of the inhabitants of the former colonies by the former colonial powers.

South Africa has to provide hundreds of thousands of citizens from Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana with job opportunities. When South Africa gave notice that in the event of sanctions we would have to give preference to Black citizens of South Africa as far as jobs were concerned, the USA also expressed its concern about the implications of that for Mozambique.

Those countries come along with sanctions and threats of sanctions. Why does Britain and the USA not invest sufficient money in our neighbouring states—in Lesotho, Swaziland and even in Mozambique—to create adequate job opportunities there so that South Africa can use its own limited financial resources to improve the quality of life of its own citizens, White and Black? Instead of that there are sanctions against us and threats of more sanctions. Instead of the Commonwealth countries paying attention to their own economic and political problems, they come along with their sabre-rattling and prejudices against South Africa and threaten to break us with sanctions.

†I suppose one can say: “Once a Hawke, always a Hawke”. The height of hypocrisy can be seen in the hawkish attitude of Australia. What they did to the Aborigines over the past century is nothing less than genocide and now they seek to salve their conscience by attacking South Africa. There are no redeeming features whatsoever in their attitude.

*I want to come to another matter. This concerns the desirability of abolishing influx control.

The hon member for Barberton is not here now, but he served with me on the Commission for Co-operation and Development and he is aware of what overpopulation can do to an area.

Mr Chairman, in terms of Joint Rule 6 I ask that this debate be interrupted to give the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the privilege of giving precedence to the following Order.

Mr Chairman, in terms of Joint Rule 6 I move:

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz Messrs S P Barnard, J H Hoon, F J le Roux, Mrs E M Scholtz, Dr W J Snyman, Messrs L F Stofberg, L M Theunissen, Dr A P Treurnicht, Messrs C Uys, H D K van der Merwe, J H van der Merwe, W L van der Merwe, Dr F A H van Staden and Mr J H Visagie) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I am sure hon members will join me in welcoming the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs to this Committee. We look forward to his participation in the debate at a later stage.

I rise at the beginning of the discussion of this Vote to make a few announcements, first of all in connection with a hiking trail. As part of the overall management plan for the Cape Peninsula Nature Area, a recreation plan is being drawn up by the Nature Area Management Committee involving proposals for a footpath network which will include a hiking trail running the whole length of the Cape Peninsula mountain chain from the cable station on top of Table Mountain to Cape Point. This proposed trail will run for a length of approximately 80 km, broken up into five daily sections with four sites chosen for overnight stops. This unique trail will provide an enjoyable and safe hiking experience which will not be unduly arduous for the hiker and, in addition, will serve to inform and educate the public about the beauty and the quality of the natural environment of the Cape Peninsula.

I hope that private enterprise will avail itself of the opportunity of providing overnight accommodation and refreshment at carefully selected sites which, by their standards—I emphasise standards—will not spoil one of South Africa’s most beautiful natural assets. As soon as the final details of the hiking trail are determined, private enterprise will be invited to make proposals for providing facilities for hikers and visitors. [Interjections.]

*I should also like to make a statement in connection with Port Elizabeth.

Considering the present economic climate in the Eastern Cape and mindful of the existing infrastructure in the Port Elizabeth harbour, it is a pleasure for me to be able to announce that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, has agreed to the Burggraaf Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into commercial harbours, giving attention as a priority to the multipurpose utilisation of the Port Elizabeth harbour. This means inter alia the making available of pleasure boat facilities, improved fishing harbour facilities and structures for development by the private sector to promote commercial practices related to the sea and its products. This enquiry follows upon a similar recently completed enquiry in respect of Cape Town harbour.

I should like to mention that the Burggraaf Committee consists of representatives of the Department of Transport, as well as my department. It is their task to consider each of the commercial harbours along our coast to see which portions of those harbours are unproductive or unutilised and what the inherent possibilities of each of these harbours are.

†In connection with small boat harbours I want to say that as part of the Government’s rationalisation process, the responsibility for the provision of small-craft harbours was recently transferred to the Department of Environment Affairs which up to now has also been responsible for fishing boat harbours.

The building of new harbours is very expensive and, since some of our fishing harbours are not fully utilised, it therefore follows that as wide a spectrum of activities as possible should be permitted within and around each of the existing fishing harbours. This, however, calls for the involvement of both the private sector and the responsible local authority, as well as for the combined efforts of planners, architects, engineers, property developers and others.

I invite tonight all those who wish to involve themselves with this type of development to come forward with ideas and suggestions as to its financing, having regard to the fact that the plans will of necessity include the multiple use of the existing facilities.

As a first step, the department will co-ordinate public and private sector involvement by deciding precisely what portions of our fishing harbours are available for private sector development. Next, the local authority with responsibility for planning the area in which the harbour is situated, will have to play a leading role in the proposed harbour and nearby developments. I think that the time is now ripe for the private sector to exploit this potential in conjuction with the public sector in the interests of local residents and visitors to our magnificent coastline.

I should also like to point out that insofar as the building of completely new harbours for pleasure-craft is concerned, while the department will give all the advice and assistance it can to promote prospective harbour development—and it already has much advice and assistance at its disposal—I believe that the private sector has a major role to play in the provision of this type of facility, and must be given every encouragement to do so.

This encouragement can best be achieved by concessions in respect of land use by the local authorities concerned and perhaps also by the relaxation of some of the town planning regulations.

*Mr Chairman, I should now like to say something in connection with permits for rock lobster and abalone.

Approximately two years ago control measures, linked to a licence levy, were introduced in regard to the catching of rock lobster and the gathering of abalone by private individuals. Having regard to representations received, and mindful of the Government’s policy of deregulation, and mindful also of the fact that the information acquired does not serve the purpose for which it is desired, and that the revenue hardly covers the expenditure in connection with the collection of licence fees, I have decided to retain the control measures concerned, but to dissociate them from the payment of licence fees.

Hear, hear!

Private individuals will therefore in future be allowed to catch or gather five rock lobster and five abalone per day, during the rock lobster and abalone seasons, but they need no longer take out a licence for this purpose.

Hear, hear!

In connection with the marketing in this country of rock lobster and abalone, I just want to make the following announcement. During the past four years 25% of the total rock lobster catch and 10% of the total abalone harvest had to be sold on the internal market. The remainder of the rock lobster and abalone quotas were exported on behalf of the quota holders by the crayfish marketing organisations, Safroc and Clea—and in the case of abalone, by individual quota holders—and particularly high prices were obtained for these products.

The quantity of rock lobster and abalone sold locally seems in my opinion to be adequate for national purposes, but the prices the public have to pay for these commodities are so high that few people can afford them in restaurants and hotels. In that way I think the tourist industry, particularly in the Western Cape, has been prejudiced. Safroc and Clea will in future not supply to the internal trade. Instead each quota holder will be responsible for the marketing for his 25% of his rock lobster quota either by marketing it himself or by making use of the services of a distributor, provided the distributor concerned is not himself a quota holder, and provided the name of the potential distributor meets with the department’s approval. The department will then be able to exercise control over the distribution of rock lobster in the internal trade. The same system will apply to the marketing of the 10% of the abalone quota.

As far as export is concerned I just want to say the following, Mr Chairman. Since Safroc and Clea, the two crayfish marketing organisations, will only be responsible for export, and will therefore jointly operate in a delicate and sensitive area, I strongly endorse the recommendations of the Treurnicht Commission and of the Alant Committee, namely that the aforesaid two bodies amalgamate without any further delay. This will be in the interest of everyone.

Last but not least, Sir—and I hope hon members will find this particularly interesting because all of them spend part of the year in Cape Town—I want to point out that one of the main shortcomings in our harbour cities is the absence of fish markets—that is to say a physical building in which marine products can be sold by quota holders. In order to fill this deficiency, I am holding talks with the Department of Transport for the use of a building in Table Bay harbour as a fish market …

Hear, hear!

… and also to make arrangements for the establishment of a fish market in Hout Bay harbour. The following rock lobster season begins in November, and before the opening of the season final arrangements will have been announced on how the markets will function.

The marketing in this country of rock lobster and abalone will take place in these markets for the full duration of the season. Rock lobster quota holders will therefore be able to export 75% of their catches through the two marketing organisations, but will have to ensure that 25% of their catches are offered for sale throughout the season on the markets in Cape Town and Hout Bay. And the public will not be permitted to buy more than five rock lobsters per day. The hotel and restaurant industry, on the other hand, will be able to buy larger quantities, subject of course to the conditions which will in due course, after consultation with them, be announced.

Rock lobster tails are our principal rock lobster export product. Consequently I have given Safroc permission to market rock lobster tails at export prices less 10% to the internal trade. The other rock lobster products—live, whole cooked and whole frozen rock lobster—will be traded in the markets in free competition. The same arrangements will also apply in regard to 10% of the abalone harvest.

†I think this will encourage competition. The three types of rock lobster which will be able to be marketed to the public and to the hotel and restaurant industry in Cape Town and Hout Bay will be those that are alive, those that are whole frozen, and those that are whole cooked. However, those tails which make up most of our export market, will be encouraged to be exported rather than put on the local market. Export prices will be allowed to be charged locally less 10%. The idea is that crayfish tails should be exported. The same marketing arrangement will of course apply to perlemoen.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister to explain to us briefly how the work is divided up between the hon the Deputy Minister and himself in two portfolios?

I shall do so during the course of my reply.

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

I want firstly to take the opportunity of welcoming the new hon Deputy Minister, Mr Naicker, to this debate. We look forward to hearing his contribution later during the course of the debate.

I will respond to most of the announcements the hon the Minister has made during the course of my speech. This year I would like to raise a fairly wide range of environmental issues.

Firstly, I would like to make a general appeal for an expanded department or for the formation of an environmental agency along the lines of the Environmental Protection Agency in the USA. We find ourselves in a position similar to that of the USA some 20 years ago. Environmental consciousness in South Africa is awakening but legislative action has not kept pace with public sentiment. In the 1960s the US Federal Government formed the Council for Environmental Quality, which is similar to our present advisory body, the Council for the Environment. In the USA, the founding of the Council for Environmental Quality led in 1970 to the subsequent formation by Pres Richard Nixon of the Environmental Protection Agency which was set up to control 15 different federal legislative programmes which up to that stage had been unco-ordinated. We find ourselves in a similar position today. Those federal legislative programmes included the control of clean air, of noise, and of clean water. They also included the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the Uranium Milltailings Radiation Control Act, plus a variety of other bits and pieces.

By comparison we have a department with a very narrow brief. Although the Council for the Environment has a wide brief on which to advise the hon the Minister, the power of the hon the Minister and the department over a wide range of environmental affairs affecting many other departments is minimal and not properly coordinated. I want to quote two recent examples to illustrate my point.

Firstly I want to mention the locust plague. Earlier this year the locust plague caused enormous damage in the central and eastern parts of the country. The Department of Agricultural Economics was in control of it, and I regret to say I am critical of their handling of the matter. Instead of proper forward planning and co-ordination for a plague which could have been anticipated, they had an obsolete—indeed, prohibited pesticide, namely BHC—in stock; inadequate steps were taken in advance of the plague to prevent it; and then, after the plague had struck, the department made use of those banned chemicals because no other chemicals were available. Furthermore, they then applied those chemicals in a way which contravened their own guidelines for the protection of the workers applying the poison and with scant regard for the subsequent effect on the food chain arising from the long-term effects of the use of BHC and other toxic pesticides. It is my submission in respect of the BHC issue, and to a degree the Dieldrin issue before it, that a strengthened Department of Environment Affairs or an environmental protection agency would have been better geared to advance planning and appropriate action to minimise the effects of the locust plague.

There is another issue to which I want to refer, and that is the toxic waste dumping issue. The hon the Minister is well aware of this issue. It arose in the wake of the application to import toxic waste for dumping and storage in this country some months ago. It is significant that this is another important environmental issue which seems to have involved this department long after the issue had been handled by another department.

The Department of Trade and Industry received the application on 18 February this year, and this remained under consideration—or on a shelf or in a file somewhere—throughout February and March. I would like to know on what date the department was first advised of the application.

The public facts are that on 1 April this year, on the basis of information supplied, inter alia, by the hon member for Albany, I issued a statement making it clear that the PFP could not envisage any circumstances whatsoever which would justify South Africa becoming a dumping ground for the poisonous or toxic waste products of any other country. On 3 April the Press reported that the hon the Minister had turned down the application. Subsequently, in the reply to question No 7 of 22 April, it was established that the application had actually been refused on the very day that our statement had appeared in the Press, namely 2 April 1986. The strange coincidence of dates whereby the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism, the hon the Minister and the Department of Trade and Industry all, as a matter of public record, reacted decisively on the very day that we had made a public issue of it, makes me think that it took a great deal of time for this department actually to be advised of it by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Prima facie it would appear as though the department only really got on to the issue either after we had blown the whistle or very close to that time. If not, the hon the Minister should let us have the dates. If the department had been advised much earlier, then why did it take them so long to refuse the application? On the other hand, this seems to me to be yet another example of an important environmental matter not being properly co-ordinated by one department.

While on the subject of this toxic waste, I note that the Government has still not disclosed the specific nature of the substances which were involved. The reply to question No 7 of 22 April also reveals that the waste of various kinds—

I would ask the hon the Minister specifically in the debate today to give the public a detailed answer as to the nature of these toxic wastes. Were any of the following substances included in the scope of the application which was made: The substance Dioxin; the substance methyl-isocyanate—otherwise known as MIC—poly-chloronated biophenyls—otherwise known as PCBs; or any substance with radio-active traces?

I ask because the substance MIC was the substance which caused the death of more than 2 500 people in Bhopal in India last year, and about eight years ago the substance dioxin discharged a cloud of poisonous gas into the atmosphere near Serveso outside Milan in Italy. The results of that accident was that 10 million cubic feet of contaminated earth had to be buried in large pits and covered with clay, plastic sheets and cement. Moreover, it is well known in environmental circles that the disposal of hazardous factory trash containing these substances is a massive worldwide problem and that if one can find an outlet, one can make an awful lot of money.

More than 66 000 different compounds are used in industry in general and less than 2% of these have been tested for possible side effects. Over the years the danger of slow toxic seepage from such products can be devastating. For example, last year, the village of Times Beach in the USA virtually became a ghost town because the water and ground were found to be contaminated with dangerous levels of dioxin.

I should also like to use this debate to repeat my April call for the Table Mountain and Peninsula Mountain Chain down to the Cape Point Reserve to be consolidated in one unified Table Mountain National Park. I would like to see a concerted effort made to consolidate the existing nature area, together with appropriate adjoining land—including the absorption of the Cape Point Nature Reserve and the whole of Sandy Bay as a Schedule 1 national park so that we can preserve the most spectacular and scenic parts of the Cape Peninsula in perpetuity on a properly managed basis. The combination, at this stage, already has massive recreational and tourist value but it is managed on a most fragmented basis at present. I am sure the hon the Minister will agree.

In this connection I should like to welcome the hon the Minister’s announcement about the development of hiking trails in this vicinity. I think the public will also welcome the opening of such trails. One should be able to walk within the reserve from the Cable Station to Cape Point, except for a number of inevitable road crossings. To make that possible we shall have to acquire more land and consolidate it.

I should like now to touch on a number of general points very briefly. Firstly, I welcome the proposed national strategy for conservation areas and objectives which has been developed by the Council for the Environment. I see they have now adopted it and I hope it will be circulated, inter alia, to the standing committee as soon as possible.

Secondly, I note with interest that the department has announced that certain forests will be privatised. I should like to make two appeals: Firstly, that we demarcate these areas clearly as soon as possible; and secondly, that we spread the net as widely as possible so that, where possible, private individuals will be able to buy small parcels of forest land.

Thirdly, I should like to know from the hon the Minister what plans are in hand for the future of provincial nature reserves after 1 July 1986. I would particularly like to know what the future of the Natal Parks Board is going to be. [Interjections.] The NPB has an enviable world-wide reputation, and I would be completely opposed to its dismantling and absorption by Pretoria. I hope the hon the Minister will give satisfactory assurances in this regard because the people of Natal feel very strongly about the Natal Parks Board.

Fourthly, I should like to know whether we are involved in co-operation with the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference countries in respect of the locust plague. The Food and Agricultural Organisation at the United Nations headquarters is working on a co-ordinated, regional plan to combat the locust plague which has threatened to spread throughout Southern Africa. I should like to know whether we have been in contact with our neighbouring countries, what co-ordinated programmes have been developed and how we are participating in that regard.

Fifthly, I believe that legislation to require environmental impact assessments on a wide scale is overdue. I hope that the hon the Minister will give us some further information on that.

Sixthly, I should like to commend the department and the Weather Bureau for the efficient and popular forecasting which they do but I should like to enter a plea for longer-range forecasts to be developed by the bureau. Elsewhere in the world long-range forecasts of up to six months ahead are of great commercial value, and I should like the hon the Minister to comment on how our capabilities are developing in that regard.

Lastly—this is as far as environmental issues are concerned—according to the latest report, the Council for the Environment still consists of 20 members although the hon the Minister has the right to appoint a further five members. I have made repeated appeals to the hon the Minister to appoint members of other race groups to the council so that it will be more broadly based and more representative of the community as a whole.

Have you made any suggestions?

Well, if the hon the Minister is specifically asking for suggestions, we shall make them, but this has gone on now for almost two years with no appointments having been made. I hope that some action will follow.

My time on the subject of fisheries is very limited this year but I should like to raise the following points briefly: Firstly, what is the status of the draft bill on marine matters and when will the standing committee have sight of this legislation?

Secondly, there seems to be a gathering controversy among the industry, the department and various scientists as to the size of the actual pilchard stock off our shores. Some industry sources are alleging that the pilchard stock exceeds previous estimates but this is scientifically unconfirmed and, of course, the department is caught in the middle of this controversy. I believe sensible policy-making to manage this resource on a sustainable basis must be based on good science and not on the claims of self-interested parties. I therefore believe that we must introduce more scientific input on a permanent basis into our fisheries policy-making at the highest level.

In this regard I should like to know what is happening about the restructuring of the Fisheries Council. This was a firm recommendation of the Alant Committee. I believe we need to create a separate scientific advisory body, subordinate to the Fisheries Council but having membership on it so that we can have a permanent scientific review of policy-making.

Thirdly, the question of seal culling became very controversial during the past year. The hon the Minister has been accused of setting policies and quotas for the culling of seals—particularly on Seal Island—on the basis of “haphazard personal prejudices”, and no scientific rationale for the culling of seals on Seal Island has as yet been provided. As a result of the criticism, and because of the high degree of public emotion which is stirred up by seal culling, I would like formally to call for a full and thorough independent scientific inquiry into this matter. We need to assess the optimum sustainable population levels for the various seal colonies around our shores. We also need to establish a scientifically motivated policy on seal culling which can enjoy the support of the scientists, the public and industry interests.

Speaking in general now, Sir, I would once again like to welcome the appointment of the Diemont Commission. I did so during last year’s debate as well. It has been sitting now for a considerable length of time and I would like to ask the hon the Minister to give us an indication of when it will report. It obviously affects a wide range of livelihoods and business interests, and therefore has very wide implications. So we need to have some clarity about this.

In passing, on the subject of quotas, I should like to ask the hon the Minister why, before Diemont has reported, he has seen fit to increase the hake quota of Mr Gaston Fernandes by 43% to 1489 tons when other hake quotas were increased by approximately only 4%. It must be remembered that Mr Fernandes is the man who sold his quota to Marine Products some years ago because, he said, he could not handle it. He made an enormous capital profit as a result of having sold his quota at that time. In fact, he has become the butt of a cynical industry joke—that one can “do a Gaston” by getting some quota and then selling it. It does seem odd and I think the hon the Minister should give us some explanation about this.

That increase was granted on a purely ad hoc basis for this year in order to alleviate the unemployment problem in Hermanus.

Well, it is a very big ad hoc bonus for Mr Fernandes.

It is just for this year.

Well, we can go into that later on.

I would also like to repeat my call for the Alant Committee reports to be tabled in the standing committee so that constructive debate can take place on these two valuable reports. They have never been tabled in the standing committee and I think it is something we could valuable spend time on in the standing committee.

In this connection the hon the Minister’s announcements today about the marketing of kreef and perlemoen were very interesting and constructive. I think it is a subject which needs a bit of detailed analysis. We could do that quite profitably in the standing committee. I particularly welcome the idea of fish markets at harbours. I think it would be a great contribution to tourism and to the general character of the Cape to have our harbours come alive with people and with fishing activities of various kinds.

You are going to criticise me, I hope!

Thirdly, I believe we need to encourage the maintenance of our traditional fishing villages along the coast—not only in the interests of the respective communities there but also in the interests of tourism and the preservation of the historic character of those parts of our coastline.

Fourthly, I should like to know what the latest status is of foreign trawlers fishing in our waters. Is there substance in the accusation that has been made that these trawlers have undue quota and that local jobs are suffering? I should also like to know what is happening in relation to Mozambique. Our boats out of Durban seem to be experiencing problems with operating smoothly in Mozambican waters. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Constantia is a valued member both for his contribution in the standing committee as well as his debating in this Committee regarding his concern for the preservation of our heritage. One may deduce from the questions he put and the statements he made that he has a lively interest in this matter—and I think all hon members will agree with me. We thank him heartily for this.

It is interesting that he propagates an environmental protection agency. We must all share the concern for the preservation of our environment and we should all like to see more active and skilled investigation into the conservation of our environment. That is true.

The hon member took a plague of locusts as one of his examples of so-called—I may almost say—negligence in connection with environmental conservation and he also referred to toxic waste dumping. Would the hon member not consider combating locusts far more fitting under agriculture and agricultural activities than in conservation of the environment? If one were to examine the degree to which the environment is damaged by them percentagewise and the degree to which agricultural produce is damaged by them, I wonder whether it is not in the right hands after all. One merely has these passing thoughts on it.

As regards the toxic waste, the great objection seemed to me to be that the Department of Environment Affairs took so long before it put a stop to this. The point is, however, that it was stopped and that process could not begin before permission was granted. Consequently it does not concern me very much when it was stopped. The point is that measures and arrangements were made which enabled the dumping of this toxic waste to be prevented.

I further wish to venture into a few other aspects in which we have an interest under this Vote. Although South Africa may be justly proud of its conservation history, it would be disastrous to sit back complacently. I think we definitely have cause for pride in aspects of our conservation in South Africa. It is well known that there is a need for the establishment of further national parks and the extension of existing ones. There is an enormous need here. If one looks at the Kruger National Park, for instance, the overcrowding and the great demand to visit it, one fully realises the drastic shortage of this type of park in South Africa.

Time for acquiring land to extend our national parks is running out fast and this century will probably offer us the last opportunity in this regard. I think we should note that time is running out. Land is becoming increasingly scarce, especially that suitable for parks and conservation projects.

The ‘acquisition of land for purposes of national parks obviously demands an inevitable capital outlay. In addition, prospecting and mining are prohibited in terms of the so-called Schedule 1 of the National Parks Act which comes down to the fact that mining rights also have to be procured at considerable cost in the acquisition of land for a national park. In other words, costs escalate increasingly. It may sometimes also not be in the national interest to sterilise proven mineral deposits in this way. Furthermore, one should examine the balance between the economic and the conservation interests of one’s country.

New doors were opened by the amendment to the principal Act in 1983 and also earlier this session which may make a significant contribution to the extension of our national parks. Provision has now been made for national parks of a totally new category within which no limitations will apply regarding prospecting and mining and in which privately owned land may be included by agreement. This is a feature offering far more and far greater possibilities for the extension of parks in South Africa.

Three properties with a total area of more than 20 000 ha have already been acquired for the establishment of the Vaal-Bushveld National Park in the vicinity of Barkly West. Negotiations on the establishment of the proposed Richtersveld National Park have already made great progress. In addition, the Langebaan National Park was proclaimed last year. The extent of the Wilderness Lake Area which was placed under the control of the National Parks Board has recently been increased fivefold and is now known as the National Wilderness Lake Area. We therefore see there is expansion but we realise only too well that a lack of money nevertheless thwarts this development although we should very much like to increase the territory faster and expand more rapidly in this sphere.

As regards forestry, the commercial forestry industry of the Department of Environment Affairs was converted to an operating account as from 1 April 1985. It is pleasing to note that, in spite of unfavourable economic conditions which are felt by the forestry and timber industry in no mean degree, a sturdy profit has been budgeted for. The conservation task of the Forestry Department is pursued with dedication and a further wilderness area in the Great Winterhoek region as well as nature reserves in the Eastern Cape coastal zone were scheduled. I do not wish to say much more about this because time in this Committee is as valuable a factor as money to extend national parks.

As regards environmental education, it is imperative to maintain a thorough balance between the quality of the environment and the exploitation of our natural resources to ensure the survival of humanity. With a view to this, first-hand knowledge and actual experience of the environment are required. Environmental education with a view to instilling a true awareness of environmental problems into the general public is therefore essential to be able to find solutions to this problem.

It is equally necessary for people from all levels of society to have a thorough grasp of the basic composition and processes of the environment. The primary objective of environmental education is the promotion of environmental ethics to appreciate the beauty of the environment. The three basic elements of environmental education—awareness, knowledge and ethics—will ultimately lead to a community which will act responsibly toward the environment because of its knowledge of and concern about it.

This is an element one still finds lacking in South Africa. Too many of our people are not aware of environmental conservation and are only too inclined to abuse the excellent facilities which are created and the splendid natural beauty the Creator has granted us. There are too many of us who make nothing more than a ghastly fiasco, as it were, of the beauty of nature with our litter.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr Chairman, activities concerning environmental education at present still take place in a reasonably unco-ordinated and fragmented way and some form of co-ordination or other at national level appears essential. The time has probably come for incisive attention to be paid to an environmental education strategy on a national basis aimed at making all South Africans—I repeat, all South Africans—aware that the quality of their lives is dependent on the judicious utilisation of their environment. This is perhaps a lofty ideal but it is one which it is definitely advantageous to strive for. If one attained this ideal, one would probably have one of the most ideal peoples in the world as regards environmental conservation.

The question of environmental education has already been addressed by the Council for the Environment and, arising from this, attention is currently being paid to the preparation of a White Paper on a national policy for environmental education.

I now get to the question of the development of coastal zones. There is serious concern about the sometimes injudicious development taking place in our coastal areas. The council for the environment consequently investigated the problems regarding the management of coastal areas. The present fragmented control of such zones is one of the crucial points stressed and recommendations arising from the council’s inquiry briefly come down to the fact that one institution should accept the responsibility for coastal management and that the numerous laws concerning the coastal zone should be rationalised. It is impossible to apply coastal management if one has 26 Acts, to my knowledge, dealing with coastal management.

It so often happens that one cannot reach the department or person actually responsible. It happened to me this morning in the course of a deputation that no one was actually responsible for a problem. Consequently, rationalisation is imperative and efforts are being made to bring it about.

I now get to the question of nature conservation. The success of any conservation action requires public involvement and participation as well as the implanting of a feeling of co-responsibility. Mindful of the fact that numerous areas worthy of conservation are privately owned, the South African Natural Heritage Programme was launched in 1984 in co-operation with other Government bodies. In terms of the programme, areas deemed to be of particular interest to the national network of conservation areas in the country may be registered at the request of the owner and guidelines formulated for their management. The programme has the support of the private sector through the South African Nature Foundation. So far the reaction has been particularly encouraging and, in addition to the 16 areas already registered, 20 are currently in the process of registration.

In this one actually sees the germ of what we want, which is the interest of every individual and of every owner in South Africa in promoting a conservation project as far as possible in his own capacity as well. Nature conservation has been regarded as the exclusive responsibility and duty of nature conservation authorities for far too long. It is necessary for more ways and means to be found to involve the private individual and it is hoped that this philosophy will have great impact in time.

I also want to say something about the Weather Bureau. As far as I am concerned, and I think many people would agree with me, it has been noted that the SABC has recently been presenting the weather report as an appendix to the news bulletin. The general impression gained is that a very limited time is allocated to the weather report. This is a pity because this report is probably one of the most popular—if not the most popular—presentations on television. I should very much like to see the weather report presented as an independent programme in its own right again and at the same time a little more time allowed for talks on interesting features related to the weather.

Talking about weather, the weather report after the news bulletin is probably the reason in the mind of every agriculturist for watching the news. If one lives in areas in which small grain is greatly dependent on rainfall and if one is experiencing periods such as are currently occurring in the Southern Cape, where millions of rands’ worth of seed is in the ground and there is insufficient rainfall to permit this to germinate, hon members may be assured that farmers have long since been weaned from watching clouds. Nowadays they watch the weather reports on television. One would like this function and service to have a full-fledged character and I appeal urgently to the hon the Minister, if it is in his power in any way, to see that a little more is made of the transmission of weather reports.

Mr Chairman, in opening I wish to convey my congratulations and those of my party to the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment. Hon members will understand that such an appointment is obviously not in accordance with our political philosophy but it has happened under the current dispensation and we therefore wish the hon the Deputy Minister good luck and success for the period in which he holds his present post.

According to our own policy, I am sure that when we come to power and our policy has been fully developed, the hon the Deputy Minister …

Will be on pension already!

… will be very happy as a fully fledged Minister in his own fully fledged Parliament.

Hear, hear!

I find no argument to put forward on the hon member for Swellendam’s speech; I actually agree with nearly all the debating points he raised.

The hon member spoke of littering which was a cause of concern to him and this carried my thoughts back to a little more than a week ago. I wished the hon member could have been with me on Monumentkoppie on Saturday, 31 May. I am saying this without any ulterior political motives; I am merely mentioning a fact which I found fine and splendid.

There were various speculations in the newspapers on how many people were present—from 15 000 to 20 000 or 30 000. A political scientist who, to my knowledge, is definitely not a CP supporter—he may be a New Nationalist or a member of the PFP—Prof Willem Kleynhans …

He is a Prog.

… alleged that there had been 50 000 people present. [Interjections.] Let us say he aimed a little too high. [Interjections.] I have attended various festivals there in the past and I know the site. I am prepared to say that the amphitheatre can hold 50 000 people at capacity. There were at least 30 000 people attending the festival in the amphitheatre. [Interjections.]

How many were Eugène’s people?

There were a number more under the trees and round their cars on the site. [Interjections.] Whether there were 30 000, 20 000, 25 000 or 35 000 people, there were many.

The point I want to bring home is that, on conclusion of the proceedings, there was not a scrap of wastepaper anywhere.

Splendid!

I can say with conviction, if one had conducted a search with a magnifying glass, one would not have found a cigarette stub or a burnt-out match there. [Interjections.] It was beautiful! I found this symbolic of people imbued with idealism and the love of their heritage—they keep their heritage clean. [Interjections.] Let that suffice on littering and on the onus which rests on the public itself to combat it. If a person tears up a piece of paper or opens a letter in some countries overseas and there is no refuse bin handy, it is a strict rule that one has to put that scrap of paper in one’s pocket and discard it at home.

To me, Environment Affairs form a very important Vote in our parliamentary system. It is true that the hon the Minister’s Vote is being discussed last of all the Votes.

Last, but not least!

Yes, I wish to express my conviction to the hon the Minister that it is the last but certainly not the least. Why do I say this? I am saying this because Environment Affairs, practically without exception, affect every facet of life. Every person, animal and plant is affected by Environment Affairs. Environmental conservation means the conservation of soil and water.

Where roads are planned and built, this should be done to appropriate the absolute minimum of workable agricultural land. This influences the production of food. If building is done very injudiciously or city or town development is done imprudently on fertile agricultural soil, it will affect agricultural production adversely.

Environmental conservation also means soil conservation. This means pasture management too which in turn means that the veld has a greater carrying capacity and there is consequently greater stock and game production.

Environmental conservation means the conservation of water in all its facets as well. This includes inter alia the prevention or the minimising of water pollution. Man, animals and plants require pure water.

Environmental conservation is also the preservation of what is unique to our cultural-historical heritage. What would Stellenbosch have been, for instance, without its cultural-historical Cape-Dutch architecture? What would Stellenbosch have been without the neighbouring wine farms? Stellenbosch would not have been the same without these; the environment assists in its preservation. What would Pretoria have been without its Church Square, its Union Buildings and its Monument? It would have been just another of the thousands of cities in the world; it would not have been unique Pretoria—the capital of South Africa. [Interjections.]

National parks form yet another part of our environment. The most famous one in South Africa and of its kind in the world is the Kruger National Park. Tourist attractions also arise from this. I shall refer only briefly to tourism as my hon colleague will concentrate on it. Tourism, arising from Environment Affairs, earned approximately R800 million last year. In addition, a remarkable aspect of this is that all other sources of income are ultimately reduced or destroyed—sources of gold are decreasing and becoming exhausted, coal deposits are shrinking and will run out in future and oil is becoming less wherever it is found in the world—but tourism is a growing industry. It is the one industry which cannot be exhausted.

This brings me to the annual report of the department. I wish to refer to the “Keep South Africa Beautiful” campaign on page 55 of the annual report:

There has to be continuity as regards the environment—continuity between the various local authorities and the overhead Central Government.

Mr Chairman, I have a petition in my hand addressed to the hon the Minister. I shall hand it to him later personally. I request him on this occasion to grant me an interview so that I may discuss this problem with him. The case deals with the HenleyOn-Klip watchdog committee in my constituency. This is a long and motivated document. I shall read only a single sentence from it:

Sir, Uttering is certainly a problem. We see my people alleging here that Black people buy sorghum beer and scatter the empty containers after becoming inebriated there in many cases. Their conduct on the pavement and in the street is unsightly and repulsive and no action is taken against them.

A fiery debate was conducted here earlier this afternoon—a debate which will be conducted just as furiously in future—on a Bill on the Order Paper. That is a Bill by means of which the hon the Minister has laid an enormous, punishing rod in pickle for himself as regards his own department. The abolition of influx control means the uncontrolled increase of Black people in areas where they do not belong—urban areas and the adjacent surroundings. All those areas will become overpopulated. This will cause the problem of littering to escalate as well as all attendant problems. This will all become an enormous problem. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Meyerton is known to be someone who loves the environment. Why he should have dragged urbanisation and influx control into the discussion of this Vote by the hair, however, I simply cannot understand.

It is a reality!

It is a fact that meaningful urbanisation also comprises the prevention of littering and so on. I shall leave my reply to the hon member for Meyerton at that.

Mr Chairman, one of the national objectives is to promote private initiative and effective competition. The principal objective of the privatisation of State activities is therefore to promote performance. It is Government policy to limit State involvement in trade and industry as far as possible. I therefore also wish to confine myself to this objective as it applies to forestry.

It can obviously result in a number of advantages, of which the following are the chief. The Public Service will be reduced and expenditure by the public sector decrease in consequence. Privatisation enlarges the tax base with the result that it reduces pressure on individuals and other taxpayers and companies. The private sector can venture into new fields to expand its activities there. It also offers the man in the street the opportunity of becoming involved or of channelling his savings into shareholdings. In addition, it causes greater economic freedom because more economic activities are subjected to sound competition and the market mechanism is permitted to play its entire part.

The hon member for Swellendam referred to an operating account instituted by the department. According to my information, the institution of the operating account has already brought about a change of attitude among personnel. As achievements can be gauged to a certain degree by such an account, performances have improved and greater initiative has been displayed. Greater job satisfaction has been experienced in many cases because results can be measured and do not simply disappear in the overall picture.

According to the Budget, the object of the department is to furnish the needs of the country in conjunction with the private forestry industry and to have a share in the national interest and fix standards for the sawmill and wood preservation industry. The role of the State in the preservation industry is being phased out gradually and, according to the most accurate statistics I could obtain, it comprises only 4,8% of the total intake by sawmills judged by the roundwood intake at sawmills for preservation alone. As far as the intake by sawmills from other organisations is concerned, it runs to only 1,5% of the timber which is preserved by all organisations. For purposes of my discussion I shall therefore leave preservation out of account and concentrate on those activities which are described as the growing of trees in plantations, which includes the ownership of the land and the trees for purposes of commercial application, as well as their harvesting—that is, the harvesting activities as well as growing activities.

There are various ways in which privatisation can take place. I shall enumerate a few: Firstly, there is the possibility of a partnership. In this case the State acts in partnership with a private undertaking or undertakings for the supply of a service or a product. This may be a permanent arrangement or it may be an interim measure on the way to the full transfer of those activities. Tweefontein is a very good example in this respect.

The next method of privatisation is that of contracting out. The State retains the responsibility for the supply of the product but does not do the work itself. I am now referring, for instance, to forestry practice and the harvesting of the product. Contracts are entered into with private undertakings for the supply of the service or product at the agreed price or set of prices.

The next way to privatise is by transfer. The activity involved, together with assets and possibly even the staff, is sold as a fully working entity to private ownership by way of agreement. Before a decision is taken on whether the commercial functions of the Directorate of Forestry should be relinquished, it should be ascertained that it will not hamper the other functions which the directorate undertakes in the interests of the country as a whole. I am thinking first of the conservation function, which, from its very nature, belongs under this department. I believe, however, that it can be separated as I shall indicate later. Secondly, it should be ascertained that it will not handicap research and the development of new products in which great successes have been achieved; great successes have been achieved in research. Thirdly, one should ensure that it will not create monopolistic conditions which will distort the industry and, fourthly, that the socio-economic component of the department will not be harmed. According to the Budget, the approved establishment for the timber production and processing operating account is 10 104 and the total of man-years 8 872. Furthermore, the State is the owner of approximately 30% of all commercial plantations in the RSA.

In the light of the Government’s declared policy that state involvement in trade and industry is to be limited as far as possible, this percentage is most probably too high. If this share were to fall into the hands of a single industrialist or be added to that of existing industrialists already possessing a large share, it would mean that possible monopolistic conditions would arise which could cause market manipulation.

According to the annual report, State activities have already been divided into nine separate regions. I wish to suggest that, as a first step to privatisation, the establishment of not only a single utility company but a number of such companies for those regions which are individually viable be considered. Regions which are not individually viable and cannot be amalgamated should simply be sold. Such a company should initially remain in full State possesion and under State management. The first year of such management will provide much information and practical experience which is invaluable to the structure of a final company and for an option on the expropriation of the shares of such a company to the general public after conversion to a public company. This experience will be invaluable in the ultimate valuation of assets for purposes of transfer to a public company because prospective investors who are aware of the fact that the company will not expropriate its assets are not as interested in the intrinsic value of the assets as in the history of returns on the assets which the industry has provided. If a history of profits is therefore available, it will be easier to determine the price of shares to ensure that returns are related to the price in order to attract the necessary investments. The price will have to be determined chiefly by the history of returns and not by the asset value.

The State will be in full control of share issues and can therefore ensure that no single group will be in total control. The State may even retain the controlling interest permanently or even for a specific period. As a profit-orientated company will not be interested in the development of marginal land, the State can retain this function together with that of conservation. If the State therefore regards it in the national interest to establish forestry at a premium, such loss will have to be borne by the taxpayer and not by the private sector.

Other activities such as research, nurseries, the procurement of seed and control of drift-sand areas, nature reserves and wilderness areas will remain the function of the State.

As regards the socioeconomic aspect, I believe that expertise is so scarce in this industry that officials will immediately be accommodated by the private sector and, on the subject of training, I cannot see that it will have any adverse effect whatsoever on the good work currently being done by the State either.

I should very much like to congratulate the department on its annual report and the multitude of statistics appearing in it. Obviously we are looking forward avidly to the updating of the forestry guide plan which I believe will not take much longer. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall not be referring to any of the points raised by the hon member for Nelspruit, beyond dealing with them relatively cautiously in the course of my own speech.

I would also like to express a word of welcome to the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs, Mr Naicker. It is indeed a pleasure to have him here with us this evening and we look forward to his participation.

I would like to touch upon a point that was raised by the hon member for Constantia which relates to a matter I have been raising regularly for as long as the hon the Minister has held this portfolio, and that is the question of the Natal Parks Board. Now that we are seeing a change in the whole system of provincial government I raise this issue once again and I would request that assurances be given again during the course of this debate that there will be no tampering with the board’s activities and that it will continue to enjoy the autonomy that it has enjoyed in the past. It is this autonomy that has contributed so much to the board’s achievements over the years and to the fact that it has been able to build up such an astounding reputation not only in this country but overseas as well.

One experiences many difficulties in preparing a speech under this Vote in that the time allowed hardly gives one an opportunity to do justice to the many facets of activity that this department deals with. With this in mind, I wish to deal firstly with certain aspects of the foresty division the activities of which have been so excellently set out in the annual report. In this regard I feel it is also appropriate to congratulate the department on the excellent annual report that it has presented. At the same time, in case I run out of time later, may I express my appreciation for the ever-willing assistance and cooperation that I have received from the officials of that department. The one aspect that worries me is this …

Order! The hon member may mull over that during the supper break.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, when business was interrupted I was just about to comment on certain aspects of the department’s annual report. One aspect which gives cause for concern is that it appears from the Budget that the allocation made to this department for the current year is completely inadequate. When one looks through the report, one realises that there are certain functions which the department was unable to carry out last year as a result of inadequate funds. While there has been a slight increase in the funds available to the department this year, I do not think that they are sufficient to meet the requirements of the department. [Interjections.]

Before proceeding further I would like to express appreciation to the chairman of the standing committee. He conducted several meetings and did so extremely well.

I also want to thank the hon the Minister for having made it possible for the standing committee to visit the forestry areas in the Eastern and South Eastern Cape last year. The tour was extremely interesting, educational and instructive, and it provided a good insight into the way in which the timber industry in that area functions. It also highlighted the important role the department itself plays in the industry. The more one gets into this subject, the more one realises that it is essential—and this is where I differ with the hon member for Nelspruit—that the State retains its existing commitments within the industry. I emphasise this because the State plays an important role in stabilising and balancing various facets of the industry.

Privatisation is a word which is being bandied about repeatedly these days. While this tag can justifiably be attached to a number of other State organisations, I feel that any withdrawal of State involvement in the forestry industry would be retrogressive and undesirable, except in isolated cases. The industry comprises large as well as a multiplicity of small segments. It is the many small components of the industry which would be affected most. A strong possibility also exists that they could eventually disappear if the State were to significantly relinquish its interest in the industry.

The timber industry has been confronted with severe economic problems during the past year as a result of the slump in the market. The effect of this is very evident on the new efforestation plantings which are well below the predicted annual requirements. I must warn that this can lead to a serious shortage of timber products in future years, bearing in mind the enormous building programme that lies ahead.

The surplus of softwood pulpwood has been responsible for imposing severe economic strain on producers, many of whom are reestablishing their plantations with hardwood or turning to other forms of farming. The incentives which are being provided by the Central Timber Co-operative are an added incentive to expand the hardwood sector of the industry.

While on the subject of forestry, I wish to refer again to the State Forest area in Weza and I do so with no sense of apology. I want to express my concern again at the proposals which have been made to include the Weza forest in the consolidation proposals of Transkei. I appeal to the hon the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the Weza forest remains part of South Africa. It is the largest State forest in the Republic and one of the major preserves of genuine yellowwood and blackwood. It also possesses an invaluable reservoir of irreplaceable flora. It contains a unique environmental factor which has been carefully protected over the years—please do all you can to save it.

Then there is the question of the Tweefontein Sawmill Company. The two components of this company are the Weza Timber Company and the Sabie Sawmill Company. If these consolidation proposals reach finality and the Wesa Forest is transferred eventually to Transkei, I want to ask the hon the Minister, what the future viability of the Tweefontein Sawmill will be. What effect would the consolidation of the Weza forest have on the viability of the Natal region? Weza is an environmental jewel and it has a highly sensitive ecological factor.

Before moving from East Griqualand I wish to refer also to farms in the Drakensberg which are situated in the Swartberg district and which the Government indicated some years ago were to be acquired in order to provide a reserve for the Natal Parks Board. [Interjections.] Farmers affected have been experiencing considerable hardship as a result of the fact that they have been unable to dispose of these properties that have been earmarked by the Department.

My request is that the hon the Minister give an indication as to when these farms are likely to be taken over. A reserve in this part of East Griqualand offers a completely different type of environmental asset and will fill a longstanding need, because that particular area of the Drakensberg range has unique features which are not similar in any way to other mountain areas in the Drakensberg.

Could the hon member tell me whether he is prepared to leave the Pakkies location where it is if Wesa stays within the Republic of South Africa?

Mr Chairman, in reply to the question I can only say that as far as East Griqualand people are concerned—whom I would support—yes, indeed. If the Weza forest area were to remain as is we would be quite prepared to leave Pakkies as it is at the present time. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the very outset I want to this opportunity to place on record the co-operation I have had from the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism, his Director-General and the entire administration. I thank them once again for their co-operation and assistance since the time of appointment. I also want to thank hon members here this evening who have thus far participated in this important debate on the environment in particular.

The Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism as trustees of our beautiful country with its limited resources remains committed to the definition of conservation accepted by the IUCN—the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which reads as follows:

At the same time it must keep its potential to meet the needs and the expectations of future generations. I recently had the pleasure of attending a two-day seminar with the senior officials of the department where the theme of discussion was the aims and objects of the department. After listening to the discussions there is no doubt in my mind of the commitment of the department to the principle contained in the definition of the preservation of the environment.

Members of the environment affairs study groups of the various Houses recently had the opportunity of being exposed to some of the work being done by the Council for the Environment. I am sure that those present on that occasion will agree that there can be little doubt that the council has been extremely active since its inception and that it has applied itself to its task with great enthusiasm. I think there are a few matters which merit specific mention. Good progress has been made with the framing of draft regulations for the control of solid waste. The volume of waste is increasing worldwide at the present juncture and this trend is also being experienced in South Africa. The department is at present involved in the countrywide propagation of sound waste-management practices with a view to decreasing the stream of waste to our waste-disposal sites.

This brings me to the promotion of the recycling and combating of litter. As I mentioned earlier, regulations in this regard are in an advanced stage, and it is hoped that it will shortly be possible to eliminate undesirable dumping and to get our country’s wastedisposal sites environmentally acceptable. On the subject of litter, it may interest hon members to know that under a project initiated by Keep South Africa Beautiful—the organisation for cleaning up of highways—the provincial administration as well as private companies involved in recycling have created a substantial number of jobs in terms of the Government’s job creation programme, particularly in Natal. This project has met with tremendous success in cases where much of the discarded material could be separated and redirected into the recycling stream. It is interesting to note that in the short space of a few months 54 tons of glass and 57 tons of cans have been recovered for recycling, whilst 480 tons of other litter have been collected—all within the boundaries of the main roads. I think a word of congratulation to Natal on this achievement would not be inappropriate—not because I am a Natalian, but because credit must go where credit is due. [Interjections.]

The Keep South Africa Beautiful organisation has continued to propagate the “clean community” system with success. The system implies the involvement of local communities in cleaning up their environments and in keeping these clean.

As far as the combating of noise pollution is concerned, the Council for the Environment has made significant progress with draft regulations that can serve as a model for local authorities. The achievement of a sound balance between development and conservation requires that environmental aspects be taken into consideration right from the initial planning stages. I want to lay further emphasis on this particular point. Only on Thursday, 5 June 1986, the Federation of the Societies of Professional Engineers held a symposium in Johannesburg. There it was highlighted that this particular federation is interested in the preservation and development of the environment. I must say that this exercise has been exceptionally interesting. It was equally satisfying to note that there is a general awareness, even at that level.

The availability of useful environmental information is regarded as a prerequisite. The National Atlas of Critical Environmental Components will endeavour to make environmental information available in a form that can be used by planners and developers. This project does not only include the mapping of environmental information, but is also aimed at establishing a reference system to bring developers into contact with the environmental experts or sources of information in respect of the areas in which they are active.

The hon member for Swellendam made a very important contribution this evening. Naturally, his contribution hinges on education. If there is one thing that is urgently required it is education and a general awareness about this particular subject matter. In this regard I want to remind the hon member that the draft White Paper on a National Policy for Environment Education that was circulated recently to various bodies associated with education for their comment, generally elicited favourable comment, and I am convinced that environmental education can be built out on a sound basis.

The department will have to fulfil a co-ordinating function and will have to act as a catalyst to stimulate environmentally oriented educational programmes without interfering with the vested functions of other departments. The department is already involved in inter-school competitions for children of all population groups in Pretoria and the Orange Free State. From this year competitions, will probably also be held in the Cape Peninsula and Port Elizabeth. The competitions, I may say, are being sponsored by well-known packaging manufacturers, to whom we are indebted.

While they are not by any means complete, these few remarks give a broad indication of the wide scope of activities in the field of environmental conservation in which this department and the bodies associated with it are involved. From this one can gauge that this department, as gigantic as its task may be, remains committed to the preservation of the environment. At this moment in time throughout the country I have personally witnessed among the various racial groups a general awareness of matters in this particular field.

I want also to compliment the hon member for Mooi River on having commented on the very excellent report of the department and also thank him for his support insofar as he believes that the budget for this department is perhaps not quite sufficient to administer this very, very important Department of Environment Affairs. I also want to share his concern about the Weza State Forest. That particular forest has a historical background. One cannot remove sentimental attachments from historical backgrounds. Nevertheless, with the highest respect for the feelings of the hon member, I believe that with the able department guided by the able hon the Minister any judgment and any decision in this regard will be justifiable and in the interests of South Africa as a whole.

I also want to thank the hon member for Constantia for the remarks he made about my presence here this evening and I want to tell him that I am indeed indebted to him. I am also gauging from the contribution he has made here that he is extremely concerned about the work of the department. Notwithstanding his criticism I noticed that he had made an in-depth study in this particular field. I am quite sure with contributions of this nature that we will ultimately be able to establish the nature of the environment we require in this country.

The hon member for Meyerton also welcomed me here this evening and I am indeed indebted to him. I do share his feelings about the Parks Board and about littering and I do share with him his very strong feeling that we should be able to collectively maintain and preserve absolute cleanliness and a country free of litter. Might I remind the hon member with the highest respect that as I mentioned earlier there is only one direction for us to take and that is the direction of educating every South African in this country and bringing about the awareness that is required for making the environment of South Africa what we would like it to be.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he endorses the principle of separate holiday resorts for each of the respective ethnic groups?

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister will deal with that matter.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon Whip for giving me the opportunity to finish my speech.

At this stage I want to impress on the hon the Minister the need for a proper planning strategy for the Drakensberg Mountain range. In doing so I want to assure him that I am aware of the Drakensberg Policy Statement that was drawn up by the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission which divided the Drakensberg area into four zones. It is necessary that certain areas be identified timeously within the threshold zone for recreational development on account of the growing demand from the population to visit the Drakensberg holiday resorts. We are all aware that outdoor recreation is becoming increasingly popular with members of all race groups, and that a great desire is being displayed to “get away from it all” and back to nature. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices!

Procedures relating to the planning of recreational areas should be put into effect in that the Natal Drakensberg area stretches approximately 180 km and covers an area of approximately 270 000 hectares.

I also want to deal with the comments made on page 27 of the annual report where reference is made to the problems experienced in the fire protection and block burning programme. I am not in a position to comment with any authority on the problems experienced in the Western Cape forest regions but I note with concern that seven block burns could not be undertaken because of unfavourable weather conditions in the Drakensberg area. I must point out that the implications of this are serious in that this can have a detrimental effect on indigenous grass cover when such blocks are burnt the following year as a result of greater heat intensity caused by the additional year’s vegetation growth.

Furthermore, the cycle relating to the burning off of blocks is then broken and the incidence of soil erosion can be greatly increased. Every effort must be made to burn blocks, particularly in the mountain areas, at their prescribed times.

The burning of firebreaks is an awesome task and great credit is due to the staff of the department involved in this somewhat unpleasant duty. They dealt with runaway fires in a dedicated manner and it is unfortunate that their efforts are largely taken for granted by the public.

I wish to deal with an aspect that was mentioned by the hon member for Meyerton. He expressed concern at the enormous quantities of litter that are becoming increasingly evident in many of the rural areas and in some parts of the urban areas. I call upon the hon the Minister to investigate the possibility of instituting some sort of deposit scheme on returnables. This would provide an incentive to the public to collect items such as bottles, cans and plastic containers for which deposit money would be paid or refunded. These measures would go a long way to removing much of the rubbish that we see littering our roads at the present time.

One realises that one of the problems here could be the transport of the litter itself but perhaps some arrangement could be made with the SATS to transport this litter at reduced rates as is done in Canada where the deposit scheme is put to very good use. In this way the amount of litter is considerably reduced by people who have an incentive to collect discarded bottles and tins along thoroughfares, which are then sold back to the manufacturers and depots.

Finally I wish to deal very briefly with the Tourism Board. Having read their report one is appreciative of the tremendous efforts that the Tourism Board has made towards trying to attract tourists to this country. I think their efforts have shown imagination and also a sense of dedication while they are battling against tremendous odds. On behalf of those of us in these benches I would like to record appreciation to the Tourism Board for the effort that they are putting into attracting visitors to this country at this difficult time.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. However, I want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs most sincerely on his appointment to a very important portfolio. I also want to congratulate him most sincerely on his first contribution—it was a very valuable contribution—this evening in this Committee.

I am convinced that the hon the Deputy Minister, seeing that we are all living in this country and using it, will be able to make a very valuable contribution, with regard to his own people too.

In the Free State?

Jan, you are a racist!

South Africa is a country which developed from the soil, established by pioneers of all races, and held together by a common faith in the future. Since its beginning as a halfway house supplying water and fresh food to passing ships, as a destination for Black stock-farmers who migrated down the East Coast of Africa, or as a home for the Bushmen hunters …

The Jannies Hoon!

… South Africa has relied on farming and on people who have confidence in and care for the soil.

This country is blessed with riches in abundance, namely extensive mineral resources, a fascinating variety of people and cultures and a proud wild life heritage.

In addition to the supply of food and its share in making this country one of the handful of exporters of food, South Africa’s stable and productive agricultural sector has also made the mining and orderly development of our mineral resources possible. This remains a decisive factor, as is reflected in the present developments in the aftermath of a crippling drought.

South Africa’s farmers are also the guardians of our future—or in any case they should be—because it must be possible to use the land on which today’s harvests are reaped, year in and year out without interruption and for many years to come. In other words, we must invest to protect our capital, that is why we must not only protect the soil and the water, but also the living resources—plants, animals, insects and other organisms which make this country the source of potentially endless abundance which it in actual fact is.

This is conservation—an insurance policy for the future. In a time of increasing impersonality conservation enables the individual to make a contribution with pride, just like the original pioneers, migrant farmers and Voortrekkers. Forms of life in our country are so divergent that their protection cannot be left in the hands of the Government or its agents only. There is too much which must be done too quickly and in too many places.

In 1980 the president of the Southern African Nature Foundation made an appeal to landowners to protect and conserve small habitats on their land voluntarily, and maintained that indispensable as nature reserves were, they could not be created overnight, and would not be able to include all South Africa’s indigenous species and habitats either.

The South African Natural Heritage Programme, launched by the Department of Environment Affairs, the four provincial nature conservation authorities and the private sector, under the leadership of the Southern African Nature Foundation, meets this requirement. This is one of the most important programmes which has ever been launched in this country. This is conservation in its widest and most important sense—the voluntary protection of our future by the individual, with the support of the Government and of trade and industry.

We need the help of farmers and landowners to single out areas which irrespective of their size are important habitants for certain species. It is interesting to know that approximately 90% of the world’s food comes from only 20 species, and we are heading for disaster if all species were to be destroyed.

But this important breakthrough to involve private landowners, does not reduce the need for more formal protected areas such as national game parks and nature reserves, because a strong and well-planned network of protected land, distributed throughout the country, will help to ensure the survival of our natural heritage. At the same time it will enable people to benefit in many ways from our great store of indigenous natural wealth.

South Africa’s two largest national parks—this was also mentioned by the hon member for Swellendam—are the Kruger National Park, which is 1,95 million ha in size, and the Kalahari Gemsbok Park, which is 950 000 ha in size. These are huge game parks, but their tremendous size can lead to complacency because together those two parks represent more than two thirds of South Africa’s protected land. But they cannot protect more than a handful of veld types and ecosystems. If we apply the Acock veld classification—and by the way this is the best available guide to our protected land—we find that only four out of 70 veld types are well protected. In all 25% of South Africa’s natural veld types receive no protection whatsoever. Many areas and ecosystems are being threatened to such an extent that they require formal conservation. What is more there is an increasing demand for tourist facilities in nature areas. Consequently it is absolutely essential for our national parks to be increased where necessary, both in numbers and in size.

Seven of our ten national parks are smaller than 10 000 ha each, which means that it is difficult and expensive to run them as independent, viable nature areas. For that reason I want to address a friendly request to the hon the Minister and his department to enlarge our national parks to at least 10 000 ha each. Size is also important for the conservation of our large mammals. Endangered species, such as the roan antelope, the bontebok, the cheetah, the Cape wild dog, the black rhino and the Cape mountain zebra—to mention but a few—need an adequate …

And a Free State Nat!

Yes, not to mention the CP. The abovementioned endangered species—as well as others—need an adequately protected habitat where they can breed to a safe numerical strength.

In the USA 16 out of a total of 36 national parks are larger than 100 000 ha each. Japan, which is 25% of the size of South Africa, with a population of more than double that of the Republic, has eight national parks which are larger than 100 000 ha each.

When we apply the same standards to Africa, we find that in various countries which are famous for their conservation policies, there are innumerable game parks which are larger than 100 000 ha each. Botswana has eight such game parks, Kenya has four, and Zimbabwe has five, while Tanzania has ten game parks which are larger than 100 000 ha each. I am merely asking for game parks which are larger than 10 000 ha each—not 100 000 ha each.

The development of an effective network of conservation areas has been the main objective of the SA Nature Foundation since 1968. In 16 years the SA Nature Foundation has played a catalytic role in the establishment, expansion and development of 22 national parks and nature reserves in Southern Africa. The launching of the Natural Heritage Programme has given an added dimension to this main objective. These two complementary schemes will give this region of Africa an invaluable foundation for the future. I hope that both these programmes will receive everyone’s active support. We must also mobilise finances like never before and let them work as a catalyst for action which will be to the advantage of South and Southern Africa, now and in future—for the future of our descendants too.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ladybrand has made a very good speech here this evening. We on this side of the House can easily associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by him. The hon member for Ladybrand made a plea for larger national parks, and there is a special need for larger parks in the drier Karoo and semi-Karoo areas of South Africa.

The hon member for Swellendam mentioned the Richtersveld Park. One hears alarming reports about the destruction of the habitat in the area which is proposed for the national park in the Richtersveld. Evidently mining interests in that part of the country as well as overgrazing by stock owners are damaging the area which is proposed for the park in an alarming way. One hopes that the hon the Minister will be able to give us an assurance this evening that the Richtersveld National Park is very high on the list of priorities of his department.

I believe that more than at any other time in our history we in South Africa have become aware that we live in a changing world. Changes that are taking place are far reaching, and they are of a social, economic and political nature. All of these impinge in some way or another on the environment. This obviously represents a vast field which it would be impossible to cover in any one speech, so I should like to restrict my speech this evening to the specific topics of nature conservation, our national parks and what the future holds for these.

The point has often been made by conservationists that the most important weapon in their armoury is education. Without educating the public to develop an interest in and a love of nature, it is extremely difficult to convince the public of the need for conservation. On this score conservationists in South Africa have achieved a great deal. We have come a very long way since the days when a Minister of Lands in this House, on being approached to set aside land for the conservation of the mountain zebra which was in danger of becoming extinct, retorted: “What do we want to save the mountain zebra for? They are only, after all, a lot of donkeys in rugby jerseys”. [Interjections.]

Today, as I have said, we have come a very long way since those bad old days. Today we actually have a Ministry of Environment Affairs with its own budget and its own programme directed specifically at the conservation of our priceless environmental heritage. Having said that, I must also point out that the real battle for conservation has, I believe, only just begun. Why do I say this? Up until now, rightly or wrongly, the major effort which has been made to educate people and to promote conservation in this country has been made among the White group.

It is unfortunate that little or no concerted effort has been made to educate other groups in our society on the need for conservation, and here I think in particular of the Black group. I believe the reason for this is in no way sinister. It has to do with the difficulties which surround Black education in general, and one can name these difficulties. There is an enormous need for basic educational skills such as reading and writing, and this tends to exclude subjects which are perceived as being of less importance. Then we have the shortage of facilities, the lack of trained personnel, the lack of funds and so on.

The next serious problem in this regard has to do not so much with basic education but with conservation strategy in general. For too long now—I believe this is very important—conservation has been perceived as the exclusive preserve of the rich and privileged and, unfortunately, as the prerogative of Whites. Here I must refer particularly to racial segregation and discrimination which is unfortunately still practised at national parks and in respect of other such facilities.

There are two principles involved here. The first is the principle of keeping national and other parks as well as their facilities as the exclusive, or near exclusive preserve of Whites, and the second is the principle of easy access to these parks. Concerning the first principle, I believe it is important that all racial discrimination should be done away with in national parks. I believe the reason for this is quite obvious: If national parks are to survive in the new era into which South Africa is inexorably being drawn, the worst possible thing for them would be that they remain the exclusive playground of a privileged racial group. I will not take this point any further, but I want the hon the Minister to investigate this matter very seriously. I believe that the hon Minister himself can set a good example in this regard in his own constituency. I think in particular of the Peninsula Nature Reserve. There is hardly a tourist to this country from overseas and elsewhere who does not visit Cape Point Nature Reserve, and everyone who does go down there must see the signs erected along the side of the road declaring picnic spots and other facilities to be for Whites only.

Where do you see them?

They are there, unless they have been removed in the past few months. These signs are there, and they are not only hurtful to our own people but they are also hurtful to South Africa, and they do conservation in this country no good at all.

The other issue is perhaps not so controversial and concerns the general accessibility of national parks to the public at large. At the Kruger National Park, I know, their tariffs have been kept down in order to keep a visit to that park easily accessible to the man in the street. This is highly commendable. This also applies to other parks, and it has made a holiday in our national parks possible for ordinary wage earners.

I was in the USA recently where I had the privilege of visiting at least 7 of their national parks. I was greatly impressed by the way in which these parks cater for all people, rich and poor alike. In Yosemite, for example, one could choose as accommodation a tent at $20 per night or a luxury hotel room at $200 per night. Some people would arrive at the park on pushbikes and others would come in Cadillacs. This is the way it should be. Parks are a national heritage and they should be accessible to all, rich and poor alike.

A very real problem, however, is overcrowding. It is imperative that strict limits be placed on the numbers of visitors to these parks, provided that this is done on a strictly first come, first served basis, and not in any discriminatory way.

I would also like to take a brief look at the wilderness trails. As my colleague the hon member for Constantia said, we are pleased to hear about this new trail in the Cape. The enormous popularity of these wilderness trails is one of the success stories of this department. By means of trails, people are brought close to nature in the most pleasant way possible, combining aesthetic pleasure with good wholesome exercise. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, to start with I should like to thank the hon the Minister for his announcement about the abolition of what I want to call the archaic measures regarding licensing for the catching of lobster and abalone. This year I myself had a few rows in connection with this type of licencing. I had the experience inter alia that I could not get a licence to catch lobster in the Southern Cape but only in the Western Cape. I travelled down to Cape Town on a Friday afternoon to find that the licences were only issued in the mornings at the Revenue Office, and not in the afternoons.

Up to one o’clock!

Yes. The licences are only issued up to one o’clock. The result is that I am a very happy man this evening and that I should like to have our words of appreciation to the hon the Minister placed on record. [Interjections.]

I should also like to associate myself with former speakers by expressing my appreciation to the hon member for Uitenhage, the chairman of the standing committee. I am of the opinion that the hon the Minister appointed an expert in his field and we should like to thank him very much for what he has achieved there up to now.

If the hon the Chairman of Committees were to look at the guide plan, also as regards his constituency, he would come across the following definition of a nature area:

When I analyse this definition three elements emerge. In the first place it seems clear to me from this definition that nature conservation in this context is a human activity. In the second place it is intended for people and in the third place it takes place with the natural environment as the backdrop. Now I want to say in all modesty that it seems to me that everyone is always concentrating on the conservation and the preservation of the natural resource worth preserving, whereas in the process they very easily forget about people and the role they play in this entire conservation set-up.

I can talk with a little authority about the Southern Cape and specifically the constituency of George. In the constituency of George there are two outstanding elements which emerge. In the first place we have a category of nature areas which falls under the jurisdiction of some or other Government organisation, for example the Department of Environment Affairs, the Parks Board or the provincial nature conservation authority. We also have a second category of well-protected nature areas, in the possession of private initiative. This evening I want to refer briefly to this second category, because it is not necessary to dwell on the first category, seeing that conservation has already achieved its primary objective there.

At the start of my argument I consequently want to say the following: In the first place most properties are privately owned and they are, as the hon member for Uitenhage will be able to confirm, acquired at a considerable cost. In the second place my point of departure is that we cannot expect the private initiative simply to fence in that land, build one or two houses on it and then sit back without any hope of financial compensation.

You have a point there. [Interjections.]

I want to say that it is only the very rich in our country who can afford to do this, but of what good is that to us? Education of the general public to conserve and protect our natural beauty should be a primary point of departure. In the second place man’s active involvement in a national conservation effort should also be a point of departure. What is more, this affords an excellent opportunity for the development of the promotion of tourism. In this way I could give various reasons if I had the time. I could also have asked many more questions in this connection.

What I consider very important is that the internationally permissible standard with regard to national parks is that 10% of a national park can be developed and made accessible to people. Consequently my question this evening is: Why can the same provision not apply as a guideline for privately owned nature areas?

I want to point out to hon members just five advantages which would ensure if these principles were to apply. In the first place it would give the owner adequate financial benefits as an investment on his land to justify his financial outlay, provided that correct implementation was given to a detailed development plan, so that the basic natural assets would not be destroyed or damaged by the development.

A second benefit which this would have is that the private sector would be able to make a contribution to bring the city dweller into direct contact with our natural assets. In this way we can make an important contribution to environmental education. In the third place we can expand tourist facilities which are aimed at the nature lover over a wide front. I believe that we can also stimulate the tourist industry in South Africa in this way.

In the fourth place in this way we can strengthen and promote an appreciated contribution by certain private organisations, such as the SA Nature Foundation. Finally I believe that such an approach could help to put an end to the continual tug-of-war between the so-called unsympathetic developer and conservation-conscious people.

Over the years the community has made use of three forms of persuasion to make people more aware of their environment. In the first place use was made of law enforcement. I do not want to dwell on this now; we are all aware of the innumerable laws in this connection. Use was made in the second place of encouragement measures, and in the third place of environmental education. I believe that we can promote the last mentioned two elements a great deal by bringing our people into direct contact with our natural heritage. I believe that in this way we can also help to promote the Tourism Board’s slogan of “a world in one country”.

In conclusion I want to address a request to the hon the Minister by means of his Directorate: Forestry, to investigate and identify which sections in certain less sensitive areas and less sensitive indigenous forests can be developed and run by the private sector in co-operation with his department.

I am well aware of the system of hiking trails being used, but if I take the constituency of George as an example again, I am sure that we still have at least 1% of the type of land which we can make more readily accessible to the general public without much likelihood of any damage being done to our natural heritage. I believe in the first place that in this way we can educate people to become more conservation-conscious, and in the second place that we can promote tourism and recreation in the process.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon member for George. He is not only my neighbour, but without any fear of contradiction I can also say that we represent the most beautiful part of the country. [Interjections.] The hon member concentrated on the development of nature areas, but I in my turn want to concentrate on the forestry industry in South Africa.

When we look at the forestry industry in South Africa, we come to the conclusion that it is a highly developed industry which owes its growth and development to the fact that our country was originally poorly endowed with natural forests. This compelled us to improve our wood position by establishing our own commercial plantations. Careful research and planning over the years has resulted in our being virtually entirely self-sufficient today, so much so that we even export many wood products.

We also find that the wood industry forms a very important part of the economy. It provides an annual turnover of more than R1 200 million, supplies work to 148 000 people and represents a capital investment or more than R2,5 billion. Consequently we can be justifiably proud of our forestry industry and we pay tribute to those persons—foresters, engineers and research scientists—who over the years have worked and built together to achieve this.

But advance planning remains of cardinal importance in order to prevent shortages in future. Based on the department’s statistics for 1979 and 1980 it was estimated that a total of 39 000 ha would have to be planted annually to prevent shortages arising. It is in the pulp wood industry in particular that the expected increase in the demand will be greatest. If we look at what is really happening, we find that during the seventies an average of 22 000 ha were planted. In 1978-79 this dropped to 13 700 ha, and in 1983-84 to a mere 8 978 ha.

These facts do not paint a rosy picture for the future of the industry. The immediate challenge is consequently to find the necessary incentives to encourage afforestation. A few other interesting facts in connection with the wood industry are the following. On 31 March 1984 the area under commercial plantations was 1 110 00 ha, which represents only 0,94% of the Republic’s total area of 117 million ha. The area owned by the public sector constituted 30% of this total, whereas the private sector owned 70%. It is interesting to mention that 95% of the processing industry is privatised. In this regard I want to disagree somewhat with the hon member for Nelspruit, who advocated further privatisation. I maintain that control by the department and by the forestry industry is of the utmost importance for the survival and the preservation of the industry in South Africa. Softwood species cover 54% of the area and hardwood species 46%.

What must our plan of action for the future be? In the first place we have the problem that every year forestry relinquishes land to other consumers, for example agriculture. Such losses must be kept down to a minimum. In the second place attention must be given to marginal forestry areas which in due course can be made economically viable for the production of wood, as the supply and demand make prices more acceptable. In the third place ten main production areas are identified in the national forestry guide. Three of these areas in particular still have great expansion possibilities. They are Richards Bay, Donnybrook Umkomaas and Ugie-Umtata. These areas also cut across the borders of kwaZulu and Transkei, and their development will not only stabilise the wood industry in South Africa but can also make a considerable contribution to the promotion of the economies of these two states. We see in the annual report that this does form part of the planning, and we hope that it will receive the necessary attention.

What the guide plan also shows us is that there are sufficient areas for afforestation in the country, without encroaching on other land demands in the country. I want to ask whether we must not look at land utilisation in South Africa in a selective, responsible way. After all it is a fact that most agricultural products in the Western world are being over-produced.

In a country like West Germany farmers are being encouraged to withdraw land from agriculture in favour of afforestation. But the wood industry is a capital intensive industry from the day that the plantation is established to the day that the yield is processed at the sawmill. Consequently it is a risky investment for the plantation owner who can only start getting a return on his investment after at least eight years. That is why the individual is hesitant to invest in this industry.

As far as financial assistance to timber growers is concerned, I read in the annual report that only one claim to an amount of R3 000 was allocated during the year under review, and that the scheme has been temporarily suspended owing to a shortage of funds. This position is causing further concern when we make a study of the declining wood supplies in those countries which were traditionally rich in forests, but which owing to a lack of proper planning and the necessary re-establishment are becoming countries poor in wood. This makes us realise that if our own supplies were to become inadequate there would be little opportunity to import profitably. Perhaps the hon the Minister could tell us what the department’s longterm planning is in this connection.

But there is one ray of hope: The comprehensive research programme of the department, the main objective of which is to increase the wood production per area unit, is being watched with great interest. The positive results already achieved with parent tree selections, here and abroad, for breeding purposes by means of seed and vegetative propagation, are very encouraging. For example, genetic variations in progeny trials indicated that the use of vegetatively grown trees from the best families increased timber production by 50% in some cases. We want to congratulate our researchers on these positive results, and we ask them to carry on with their important work.

Mr Chairman, this evening I should like to thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for the opportunity I had to take part in the parliamentary study group’s short tour through the forest regions of Tsitsikamma and the Southern Cape in September last year on behalf of my party. It was an opportunity to learn about the various facets of the department’s activities in those areas.

We found the visits to some of the State forests and to Boskor’s sawmill, as well as the opportunity to see how the re-establishment of vegetation along the national road in those areas has taken place and the very interesting visit to the Saasveld College at George, very interesting and’ informative. Consequently I want to inform the hon the Minister that if the department ever considered promoting tourism among Parliamentarians they in fact did so by means of this tour which the hon the Minister arranged for us.

Then I also want to take this opportunity most sincerely to thank Mr Otto and the other officials who accompanied us on that tour by means of their continuous comments and information made us conversant with everything we saw. I also want to express my sincere thanks to those hon members whose constituencies we visited for their hospitality.

As hon members know environment affairs, nature conservation, forestry and tourism all flow together beautifully. We are also very pleased about the hon the Minister’s announcement this afternoon in connection with the Tafelberg hiking trail, as I call it, of approximately 80 km. We thank him for this.

Sometimes speeches also flow together and become interwoven, but be that as it may, I want to devote part of my speech to the activities of the South African Tourism Board and the board’s staff. South Africa, with its vast area of more than 472 000 square miles, with its coastline of approximately 3 000 kilometres and hundreds of alluring sunny beaches, with its approximately 350 storage dams with an average capacity of 250 000 cubic metres of water, with its more than 250 000 farm dams, with its 3 000 hours of sunshine per year, with its beautiful scenery, with its large number of well-developed leasure resorts, with its private reese of which is probably the Kruger National Park, because it has the largest variety of species on the continent of Africa, and with its many luxuriously appointed private bushveld and lowveld game farms, where in the calm of the evenings one can sit and relax peacefully in a lapa around the braaivleis fires; this South Africa is truly a tourist paradise which in many respects has not yet been properly enjoyed and utilised by our own people.

The responsibility to market this tourist paradise is of course in the first place that of the South African Tourism Board. The Act in terms of which the Tourism Board was established, also very clearly defined the objectives of the Tourism Board. Briefly these are to encourage foreign tourists to visit our country, and to encourage our local tourists to see what they have never seen before in our own country. It is also the objective of the board properly to maintain the infrastructure and everything which can promote tourism.

I had a woodwork teacher who used to say: There are many obstacles preventing one from putting ones words into actions. One can really say that the Tourism Board under the leadership of its able chairman, Mr Danie Hough, can only carry out its task successfully if in the first place it has a practical, workable and implementable strategy. Consequently the board must tell us clearly what it is going to do.

There are indeed many obstacles preventing them from putting their words into actions. On page 8 of the annual report we are told about the many obstacles the Tourism Board is faced with from time to time. It is spelled out to us that the economic recession is still with us and that inflation is very high. The other obstacle facing the Tourism Board is the unrest in the country which had led to the proclaiming of a state of emergency in specific areas. There is also the dramatic decline in the value of the rand against virtually all overseas currencies, and the worsening of South Africa’s image abroad, mainly as a result of inprecedented negative publicity. These are important obstacles the Tourism Board must overcome.

In my opinion there is another very big obstacle the board must overcome and which it is faced with from time to time, and in my opinion this is the inadequate funds voted to the board. For that reason I also want to ask this evening that in future more funds be voted to the Tourism Board in the form of a grant-in-aid.

In the second place the Tourism Board can only carry out its task successfully if it retains the initiative by marketing tourism in spite of the adverse influences I have mentioned. Fortunately there is now also wonderful proof of the fact that the board is retaining the initiative. When I say this, I am referring to the board’s “See South Africa first” campaign. In this connection I should like to associate myself with other members who will undoubtedly also refer to this later this evening and also place emphasis on the fact that domestic tourism must be promoted very strongly. Last year in June this idea was launched with the first national advertising campaign with the slogan: “See South Africa first”.

This slogan really reminds one a great deal of the slogan with which General Hertzog placed South Africa on the road to national awareness decades ago. If the Tourism Board can retain the initiative with that slogan like General Hertzog did, we foresee wonderful prospects for tourism in this country. We must really congratulate the Tourism Board, but besides them, also the very capable officials who are attending the debate here this evening. We must congratulate them on the campaign to make our own people aware of the fact that we must get our priorities right when it comes to going on holiday.

I believe all the loyal South Africans will wholeheartily support this campaign. As a matter of fact I think that it is the duty of all South Africans to forget about overseas tours for the next couple of years at least. We dare not go and spend our rands overseas. Keep your money at home. Spend it here in South Africa.

The “See South Africa first” campaign is probably one of the most brilliant programmes which the South African Tourism Board has ever launched. Earlier this year many of my colleagues were privileged to see this campaign in action at the Good Hope Centre, where a very successful programme was presented with the co-operation of the private and the public sectors. This pointed out to us the most wonderful examples of what South Africans can see here in our own country.

For South Africans who like going on holiday, for those of us who have experienced so many tensions during the past few years, and for all South Africans, it is an absolute must for us to support this campaign enthusiastically.

I want to reiterate the point: In the prevailing poor economic conditions in our country it is really a crime of the worst kind for South Africans to gad about overseas and spend millions of badly-needed rands over there instead of in South Africa. Consequently we must say: “Go on holiday in South Africa, and really see South Africa first before you go overseas!” [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is like a breath of fresh air to have a positive speech from the hon member Mr Theunissen for a change. I should like to associate myself with what he said when he thanked the hon the Minister for the tour in the Eastern Cape. It was a unique opportunity to get to know our hon colleagues in the other Houses better on that tour, particularly our hon Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs. On that tour we found out that the Director General is a very talented guitarist.

In the times in which we live, it is extremely important for us to look in a balanced and level-headed way at the realities around us. On the one hand we cannot act without taking cognisance of history, but on the other hand history is useless without the realities of today. This applies to many spheres today, including the sphere of culture-historical conservation, which I should like to discuss.

Culture-historical conservation must not be seen as something obstructing progress, but in fact as a way to maintain a balance between the architecture of the past, the present and the future. It not only enhances the visual quality of the city, town or environment in which we live, but it also serves as a psychological support for the public in its subtle search for stability in a rapidly changing world.

I venture to say that nowhere in the Republic is the conservation of the environment more important than in the Western Cape. I am not saying this because the Western Cape is more important than the rest of the country, but because the Western Cape is truly the cradle of the nation. [Interjections.] The mountains, the rivers, and even the oak trees of the Western Cape are landmarks in the history of our people.

This evening I want to venture to move even closer to home and talk about Paarl specifically. Next year Paarl will be 300 years old. I want to venture to say that Paarl is a singular mirror image of this process of development. This is even apparent in its name. Whereas other towns like Worcester, Stellenbosch, Swellendam, Wellington, Montagu and Oudtshoorn all derived their names from people, Paarl derived its name from its surroundings.

It was Abraham Gabbema who on his first expedition in 1657 saw the rain-drenched granite rocks in the Berg River valley and compared them to a pearl. That is where the name of that beautiful town came from.

No wonder that after 300 years the inhabitants of Paarl are proud of their environment, their mountain, their river, their riverbanks and so on, but—this is the point I want to make—an environment does not only consist of the creations of nature. There is also the environment created by man, and the built-up area is undeniably part of our environmental heritage. That concept really takes shape in this department of the hon the Minister.

Paarl is richly endowed in this respect, specifically as regards the architectural styles found there; four architectural styles about which I should like to say something. What is interesting is that it not only concerns the architectural style, but also the historic meaning which can be attached to each of the architectural styles.

I want to start with the beautiful Cape Dutch style of the Strooidakkerk, and I assume hon members have all seen it. It is the second oldest church in the country, but what is important, as far as the Cape Dutch architectural style is concerned, is that it reminds us of the freedom of religion which is such an important part of our history, and which really originated here in the Western Cape. There are many other churches in Paarl too, and I want to mention the interesting example of the Roman Catholic church which was built by Sir Herbert Baker, the same architect who designed the Union Buildings.

Other Cape Dutch buildings in Paarl and its surroundings, like Laborie, which most hon members have also visited, reminds one that the French Huguenots who will have been in South Africa for 300 years in 1988, not only settled in Franschhoek, but even in Paarl.

At the other end of the spectrum we have the buildings which were erected in this century, particularly those built in the so-called Art Deco style. The best example of this is the La Rochelle High School which is synonomous with education. This also means that this town is one of the educational centres of the country.

A third example of a building style is the Victorian building complexes which epitomise the role which Paarl played in the transport affairs of the country. This is where the wagon really originated, and it is interesting that after all these years the Department of Transport has its biggest building undertaking there at the tunnel project.

My fourth example concerns the Afrikaans language which originated in Paarl. The Taalmuseum—I hope hon members have been there—is a typical example of the Cape Georgian architectural style. The house of Gideon Malherbe, as well the outbuildings in Dal Josafat represent the same architectural style.

Consequently it is wonderful that these four architectural styles in that town are synonomous with a very interesting history. I do not think there is another town, not even Stellenbosch, which has such a wonderful variety of architectural styles. That is why last year the “Stigting Paarl 300” was establish under the patronage of the State President. Its major objectives are to inform and motivate the public regarding the value and preservation of culture-historical heirlooms, to identify and preserve buildings worth preserving and to recreate the historic character of the town by means of the restoration of buildings. For that purpose a fund has been established which now exceeds R300 000. This is used to give financial assistance to people who own buildings worth preserving and are prepared to restore them of their own accord. After restoration those buildings are declared national monuments by the NMC and are preserved for posterity.

In this connection I should like to say that the NMC would do well to consider using these buildings for every conceivable purpose. There must be no impediment regarding the purpose for which it will be used.

Yes, that is a very good point.

The identification of buildings along the Paarl main road has now been completed, and in that one street alone there are more than 300 buildings which are really worth preserving. At this stage 70 buildings in Paarl have already been declared monuments, of which 50 are situated in the Main Road. This evening I should very much like to ask the hon the Minister—and through him the Government—bearing in mind the present recessionary conditions and the costs of restoration, as well as the great many treasures to be found in that town, to consider giving assistance to this foundation by making a financial contribution which will help the foundation to safeguard and preserve this heritage, not only for Paarl, but indeed for the whole of South Africa. When Stellenbosch celebrated its 300th birthday a few years ago, the province and the State repaired and restored the beautiful old Voorgelegen and presented it to Stellenbosch. I think the State owes it to Paarl to do something there too.

A final thought. Every country in the West has to a greater or lesser extent tried to preserve its historical heritage. The USA specially re-built a little town called Williamsburg. The foundations of South Africa’s development and culture lie in Paarl. It must be preserved like a precious jewel. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Paarl once again made one of his fine speeches, but I am sure he will pardon me if I do not react to it.

The hon the Minister made a few very interesting and important announcements here tonight, which were very welcome. I am referring in particular to the inquiry of the Burggraaf Committee into the multi-purpose use of our harbours, the priority granted to Port Elizabeth’s harbour by the hon the Minister, and the licensing of rock lobster and abalone. In the Transport debate I addressed an urgent request that efforts be made to integrate the Port Elizabeth harbour with the community once again. The announcement made here this afternoon by the hon the Minister is very positive for Port Elizabeth, and indicates that the hon the Minister is very sensitive to the urgency of Port Elizabeth’s circumstances. We look forward to the report of that particular committee.

Closely linked to this is the application for a fishing quota by the Port Elizabeth Fishing Company. This application has received quite a lot of publicity, although some of it may have been less fortunate. I should like to put the standpoint of hon members of this side of the House in respect of this matter, however. We have very strong support for the principle that communities close to the fishing resource should have a high priority in the consideration of quotas. I am sure the hon the Minister will pay attention to this too. He can link a quota to investment in Port Elizabeth.

Unfortunately the hon member for Newton Park is not here tonight, but since his constituency is affected, I should merely like to know from the hon the Minister the status and the position of the botanical gardens in the Bakens River. I think the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has an interest in this too. Once again it is important to the Port Elizabeth area.

†The hon member for Constantia pointed out quite rightly the importance of the Alant Committee reports and I have no objection to a discussion of these reports on the standing committee. In fact, I shall welcome it, because I do not think we did justice to the work and the quality of those reports. If the hon the Minister so wishes we can certainly discuss these reports.

I want to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his kind remarks and to tell him that he has certainly made some very solid recommendations and contributions in these debates, which I appreciate.

*Mr Chairman, the other important announcement the hon the Minister made here this afternoon, was the one in connection with the abolition of licences for catching rock lobster and abalone. I think it is very important that these wonderful assets which are peculiar to South Africa be placed at the disposal of the public without their being linked to an irritation factor, which the licences were. I also believe the hon member for George hit the mark when he indicated—in an excellent way—that he accepted what the hon the Minister had done in this respect.

On the aspect of licensing I do want to ask the hon the Minister—also since some of the provinces’ functions will be transferred to his jurisdiction soon—at least to try to eliminate or minimise the inordinate irritation of the public as far as the question of licensing is concerned. I obtained a hunting licence recently. A licence of this nature costs R10. A netting licence costs 50 cents, and an angling licence R1. To obtain this, one has to get to the office of the Receiver of Revenue before 13h00. One then has to complete a bulky form in duplicate for each separate licence …

With a medical certificate attached!

Yes, just about! Then one receives an equally bulky licence, printed on paper of a hopeless quality. Now one is expected to wear that netting licence in one’s bathing costume while one is catching harders. I think we should follow the examples of the USA and Europe, where one can purchase these licences freely from every bait or sport shop. Then at least one has a licence with a durable plastic or metal holder. I understand the Cape Provincial Administration has already begun to work in this direction, but despite that I do want to recommend this to the hon the Minister. We must really consider this ridiculousness as far as licensing is concerned. I do not know what it costs the State to do all this paperwork, or which officials ever really look at these details.

During the past number of years this hon Minister has done a great deal and made many efforts to assist the recreational angler in practising his sport in a better way by protecting his resource. A daily catch was instituted, as well as closed seasons—all to protect the resources. Like many other countries with a large angling fish potential, however, the Republic is relatively uninformed about the scope of the recreational angling industry and its value to the economy, particularly for the tourist industry. I want to refer here to a whole number of angling categories. There are the rock and beach anglers, the river mouth anglers, the game fish and ski boat anglers and so on. Sufficient information to make a proper evaluation is simply not easily obtainable or even reliable. A few years ago Canada made a similar inquiry into this kind of fishing. They call it “recreational fishery”. To their alarm they found that the investment in that recreational angling far exceeded the value of their commercial fleet. In fact, I am afraid that is the position here as well. I want to point out that we estimate that R46,8 million is spent annually on new ski boats, outboard motors and vehicles to tow these things. The amount spent on maintenance costs, insurance and fuel is R10,5 million, while these people’s accommodation and hotel costs and so on are not being taken into account at all.

As far as organised rock and beach angling is concerned, it is estimated that only the equipment involved is worth more than R6 million. It is clear, therefore, that the protection of this fish resource has immense implications for everyone and that it should receive a high priority. Primarily it also involves the protection of our domestic tourism.

†I should like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to an article in the ski boat publication of March/April 1986. It was written by Mr Graham Winch, and the heading is “Our reef species are doomed and nothing is being done”. The gist of his argument, or his main frustrations, are that no interest is shown in the economic importance of the recreational angler, the bag limit on squid, the A-licences granted, and then the trawlers.

*I want to talk about only one of these aspects, viz the question of granting A-licences to certain ski boat owners. As hon members know, that licence means full commercial angling rights for the people involved. The idea of commercial ski boat licences was initially supported by anglers only on the grounds of absolute assurances that these licences would be limited and could not be transferred. I am afraid many more A-licences were granted than was ever the intention. I want to ask the hon the Minister to have a thorough inquiry made into this matter, because I am afraid there was large-scale perjury in this connection. I request that drastic action be taken against those who obtained A-licences in these circumstances, in that their licences be withdrawn.

As far as the tourism aspect is concerned, I want hon members to consider that as far as the recreational angling industry is concerned, commercial activities must be eliminated absolutely or at least minimalised in those areas where tourism is the chief activity. I am talking about Plettenberg Bay, Cape St Francis and even Jeffreys Bay in particular.

†I notice in the report on marine research for 1985 that the prospect for research into and the scientific management of line fishing has improved in recent years. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Uitenhage has again displayed his knowledge of the fishing industry. I regret I cannot follow him on this occasion because I want to talk about tourism. However, I would like to congratulate him on his promotion to the chairmanship of the standing committee. He is a good chairman and I hope that the standing committee will meet more often under his chairmanship.

I would also like to correct an unfortunate omission of earlier today and that is to thank the department for the very enjoyable trip which they organised last year. It was most pleasant and we enjoyed meeting the officials on a more personal basis. We gathered a great deal of useful information during that time. I hope we can have such excursions more often.

The tourism industry is going through a tough period at the moment. We get less than a half percent of the worldwide tourist industry which involves some 300 million tourists annually. In 1984 South Africa attracted fewer than a million foreign visitors. There were just under 800 000 foreign visitors. Although the Tourism Board predicted growth during 1985, there was in fact an 8,2% decline in the total number of foreign visitors here.

We have not even begun to scratch the surface of the potential of the tourism industry in this country.

It’s because of the Government’s policy!

Yes, that hon member has a point, for once! [Interjections.]

While the rest of the world is becoming increasingly sophisticated and is benefiting from the steady growth in tourism, we are languishing far behind. The two reasons for this are the world perception that this is an unsafe destination, and also the apartheid stigma. In this regard I must welcome the recently announced promotional campaign of the Tourism Board, particularly the recently launched campaign to obtain addresses of overseas friends and relatives so that the Tourism Board can target a direct mail promotion campaign at these people. Although it is clear to me that some major policy adjustments to get rid of apartheid by themselves would have far greater influence on attracting foreign tourists here than all the millions of rand set aside for the Tourism Board in their promotional budget could possibly achieve, I nevertheless support the board’s efforts to generate more visitors to come here, within the constraints in which they have to operate, provided they do not make the mistake of abusing their promotional budget to try to justify or promote the Government’s apartheid policy.

In this connection I must take note of the original marketing idea which has been adopted by the board whereby they have commissioned over half a million video cassettes to be handed out to everyone who leaves this country in the next few months to go overseas. Each person is going to get a video cassette. This is going to be an enormously expensive exercise, but it is potentially a uniquely effective way of advertising this country as an attractive destination. Having said that, however, I again want to issue a warning to the hon the Minister and the board in the strongest terms that while we will support the use of these promotional videos to promote tourism as such, we will condemn any move to use them in an attempt to sell apartheid. If that mistake is made, the videos will be dismissed as political propaganda and the campaign will undoubtedly be counter-productive.

In this connection I would like to ask that the standing committee be given a preview of these videos before they are issued for general release. If they are produced as part of a genuine marketing campaign to promote South Africa as a beautiful destination which offers excellent value for money, then they will represent a worthwhile investment.

While on the subject of promotional matters, I would like to ask for information as to when the proposed travel guide will be issued for general release. There has been talk of it for some months now, and it is unfortunate that it has not been released prior to the school holidays, when many people will be travelling within South Africa.

I would now like to focus on what I consider to be the major problem facing the successful promotion of South African tourism. This is the problem of lingering apartheid in South Africa. I greatly welcome the new legislation which has been introduced affecting hotels, which permits all licensed premises to admit any person regardless of race. I regret to note, however, that it remains at the discretion of the hotelier as to whether he will admit a person on the grounds of race. Furthermore, our trains are subject to race discrimination, and I ask how we can possibly promote South Africa as a tourist destination both internationally and to our own people, the majority of whom are Black, if we cannot provide for complete freedom of movement and accommodation facilities throughout the country. The Tourism Board will never be able fully to achieve its objectives so long as discriminatory legislation prevents tourists from moving about without fear of race discrimination within the country.

I believe the hon the Minister and the Tourism Board must make the strongest approach to the SATS for all trains to be completely desegregated. Moreover, I believe that we also need affirmative legislative action to ensure that a public hotel may not discriminate purely on the grounds of race.

So you want to enforce integration.

I want to enforce a provision that no hotelier can refuse admission on the grounds of race. To leave this matter in the hands of hoteliers is unsatisfactory. We should adopt regulations whereby no hotel can obtain a star rating if it practises apartheid. I obviously do not object to hoteliers having the right to refuse entry to undesirables and anti-social elements, but I do not believe we can condone a situation where people are turned away purely on the basis of the colour of their skin. This has happened recently—in the hon member for Kuruman’s constituency, if I am not mistaken—and the threat of it recurring is a major switch-off for overseas tourists and for our own people touring the country. I therefore call specifically for legislation and regulations to give effect to affirmative action in this regard.

I would also like to call for the formation of a commission of inquiry representative of non-White people to investigate and report on how South Africa’s tourist facilities and arrangements can be improved to promote tourism in South Africa among non-Whites and among overseas tourists. It would help us to develop a massive untapped market, and perhaps this is a project for the hon the Deputy Minister to tackle.

It has often been said in the House in respect of other debates that South Africa’s road to re-entry into the international community runs through Africa, and I say that tourism is one of the ways in which we can open that road. We must link up with our neighbouring states for the promotion of tourism among the various countries in Southern Africa in order to create package deals to make Southern Africa as a whole a generally attractive destination for overseas tourists.

I know that Sartoc links up South Africa, Malawi, Botswana and Lesotho but I also note with concern that there is not similar formal linkage between Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Angola and ourselves and Sartoc. We must co-operate with all these countries in a common tourist organisation whereby we all promote this subcontinent as a wonderfully diverse, exciting, interesting and beautiful travel destination in order fully to develop our potential in the tourist arena.

We know that there are political and military problems with some of our neighbours but we must look to the long-term future. We must now build bridges in non-political areas wherever we can, and I urge the hon the Minister to take action in this regard. By drawing more Southern Africans into this country and by facilitating South Africans to travel more widely in Southern Africa in general, we can develop better relationships with our neighbours and we can link up more with our natural, regional family of states.

There are other sundry matters which I should also like to raise. I should like to know whether any significant progress has been made to place our national and provincial parks on a central reservations system. [Interjections.]

I should also like to know whether any steps are envisaged to bring the travel agents and the Travel Agents and Travel Agencies Act under the general authority of the Tourism Board. I hope the hon the Deputy Minister is making notes because I see the hon the Minister is otherwise engaged. If this is the case, I should like to know on what basis the Travel Agents and Travel Agencies Act would be brought under the Tourism Board, what powers would be envisaged in this regard and at what stage this is likely to be tabled with the standing committee.

I should also like to raise again the question of SAA international fares to and from Cape Town. I think it is quite wrong that it should be so much more expensive to fly internationally to and from Cape Town than from the Johannesburg airport. According to the figures available to me, it seems that it actually costs less for SAA to fly overseas from Cape Town than from Johannesburg. The hon the Minister should do something about it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Constantia will pardon me if I do not follow on after his arguments. He again tried to drag apartheid and discrimination into the debate. If there is no apartheid or discrimination, he tries to find it or conjures it up. And so I shall leave the matter at that.

Does it exist or does it not, in the SATS?

The value and meaning of tourism cannot be over-emphasised. It is true that the tourist industry is one of South Africa’s biggest earners of foreign currencies. But not only is it a big earner of foreign exchange; it is also a major employer. Thousands of job opportunities are created within the infrastructure by tourism. This is to the advantage of the whole country.

There are 1 354 registered hotels, for example, with 92 519 beds in South Africa. I am also thinking of all the restaurants and the concomtant catering services, holiday resorts, airports, game and nature reserves, etc. These are all places where work is provided for our people.

Tourism is also the greatest bridge-builder. Its intrinsic value lies in that. It creates good relations. There is not better ambassador for our country than the foreign tourist who has come here and has seen for himself what the position here is. Every tourist who enjoys our sunshine, experiences our scenery and our hospitality, leaves with a better perspective than he had when he came here. Tourism is an industry that builds and creates. Our country is rich in minerals and gem stones, but these are declining assets. On the other hand tourism earns money, builds up an infrastructure and generates development, which is so necessary for our country.

I want to congratulate the SA Tourism Board today on carrying out certain proposals that were made last year during the discussion of this Vote. I am referring to the VFR promotion group—Visiting Friends and Relations—which was launched recently to encourage South Africans to supply the board with the names and addresses of their families and friends overseas to enable the board to send publicity material to these people through its foreign offices. In this way a few million people can be reached. I think each of us has a duty to do in this regard. The making of video films which depict the real South Africa—not a caricature of it—and the regular distribution of such videos by means of a dispatching programme is a marketing activity, which I believe, holds tremendous promise of success.

Now this brings me to the subject which I really want to discuss and bring to the attention of hon members, ie the staff of our foreign offices. I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the important work being done for our country by our representatives abroad. These staff members deserve our highest praise for their valuable contributions. They sometimes do their work under very difficult conditions. They also stand in the frontline of the onslaught against South Africa. Our representatives in foreign offices have the virtually superhuman job of conveying the message about South Africa to millions of people, thousands of daily papers and magazines, television and radio stations, universities, colleges, churches, and whatever one cares to mention.

They have to do this job. Day after day they have to try to correct the distorted image of South Africa. The television, Press and radio coverage paints a picture of South Africa which is repugnant to prospective visitors. I want to stand up for this staff today, particularly that of Satour’s foreign offices. I am not going to argue for higher salaries for them today, although I think that this also deserves attention at the right time. But I shall leave it at that.

I really do find it strange that our staff abroad are discriminated against, although I do not like the word. I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the fact that members of our foreign embassies and consulates all have the privilege of, for example, acquiring a motor vehicle and then to bring that vehicle back into the country as soon as such a member has completed his service overseas and returns to South Africa, without having to pay customs duty and tax on such a vehicle. Employees of Satour, however, are not allowed to do this; they have to pay the full import tax and customs duty. I think this is unfair and unreasonable. Such an official after all also needs a vehicle. Satour staff members can surely not be expected to manage without a car in strange countries. If such a person has purchased a car at great expense, and returns to South Africa afterwards, he has to get rid of his car—possibly at a great loss. Is it fair to expect such a sacrifice from one’s staff? No, I cannot agree with this form of discrimination. I also do not agree with some of the reasons given for this. The staff of Satour are as much at the centre of politics and the onslaught against South Africa as other members of our embassies and consulates.

I find this unnecessary and unfair discrimination unreasonable. The cold winters of the Northern Hemisphere are as cold to staff members of Satour. It is as long, and the days are just as dark and cold as they are for members of other missions. They also long for their family and friends in South Africa and they are, like everyone else, entitled to this benefit. I think that the chairman of the South African Tourist Board and the hon the Minister will give their favourable consideration to my request to put this matter right. Even if it would involve changing the law, we should do so when such a law has become obsolete. Our representatives abroad will gratefully take note of such a correction and consequent obligingness. The irony is that such a staff member may, for example, buy an expensive grand piano overseas for $36 000 or $38 000 and then bring it to South Africa tax free, but a motorcar of, for example, $14 000 may not be imported. This does not make sense to me, and I therefore ask, on behalf of Satour’s staff, that they should be allowed to bring their own cars tax free and not subject to customs duty into the country on the same conditions as those which apply to other members of our missions. There was a time—I am not sure if it is still the case—when a student, as soon as he had spent longer than six months abroad, could buy a car there and bring it back into the country without paying customs duty free. Yet a member of Satour may not do this.

I now arrive at the second part of my speech. I now want to address our people—in doing so I also link up with what was said in connection with this earlier this evening—to spend their vacations in this country rather than going to tour overseas in these unfavourable conditions. Now is the time for us to identify ourselves with the slogan, “See your own country first; see South Africa first.” For us it is very expensive to go and tour overseas. So let us spend our money locally. If we take our vacations in this country, our money remains here, and helps to stabilise the existing infrastructure and to extend it. Today local tourism amounts to approximately a billion rand for us which is brought into circulation and by means of which work is therefore created. Our hotels, our holiday resorts, our game reserves, our railways and our airways offer attractive discount packages. We should therefore support them.

It is the duty of every South African to support our own local tourist industry and in doing so keeping thousands of workers employed and stabilising and extending the existing facilities. Every South African can make a valuable contribution. It is also in the interest of tourism in South Africa to offer attractive holiday packages. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the ideas expressed by the hon member for Kempton Park, particularly his reference to the bringing in of capital goods by officials of the department, and also the last few ideas he raised in respect of domestic tourism.

As far as the fishing industry is concerned, it is very similar to the agricultural industry. Both these industries are based on natural resources, in which private initiative utilises the resources by means of free enterprise. Control measures are involved in both these industries, and both are aimed at protecting the industry for posterity. Both industries have control measures which are based on the same principles. The national grazing strategy, for example, follows the same principle as the quota system applicable in the fishing industry. Nature plays a decisive part in the long-term planning and also the day to day management of these two resources.

It is clear from this that the success with which a Minister deals with these portfolios of Agriculture and Fisheries is very closely linked to the relevant Minister’s understanding and knowledge of the various complexities of the industry. In this connection I should like to give the hon the Minister a compliment, one expressed to me by a senior official in the hon the Minister’s department. It was said with the express request, however, not to tell the hon the Minister that he was the one who had said this. This particular official said he did not know any former Minister who had dealt with his portfolio with as much knowledge and good understanding for and compassion with the fishing industry as the hon Minister. I want to agree with this particular official. In fact, in my own constituency the results of unpopular and contentious steps taken by this hon Minister a few years ago, have proved today that the hon the Minister knows exactly what he is doing. I am referring specifically to the closure of Walker Bay. I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that the public and the anglers of this area have great appreciation and a great deal of praise for the far-sightedness of a few years ago.

The hon the Minister has taken exceptional steps recently in the interests of the private professional fishermen and the communities in which these fishermen and their families play an extremely important part and of which they are making the fishing industry the lifeline. These steps have contributed greatly to the stability of the small entrepreneur in the industry. The Diemont Commission’s terms of reference, which include inter alia taking the position of the private fishermen into account, confirm that the Government regards the small entrepreneur as very important.

Last week the hon the Minister gave the fishermen of Gansbaai an additional sardine quota of 2 000 tons, for which I should like to thank him very sincerely on behalf of the community of Gansbaai. His action confirmed that the Government understands that the local fishing communities make up an important part of the Cape culture, and are an essential component in the economy of the local areas adjacent to the sea. In this connection, by the granting—although temporarily—of an abalone quota to the Gansbaai Co-operative, the hon the Minister also took a step which was and still is of great significance to this small community.

I pointed out the similarity between the fishing and agricultural industries earlier. As in the agricultural industry, the increase in costs, together with a dramatic decrease in line-fish catches, also has serious financial consequences for the local fishing communities. On the one hand, of course, a natural phenomenon is responsible for this, but on the other an over-utilisation of the line-fish resources through the years is a contributory factor as well. That is why applied management practices, as are being applied in the licensing of line-fish boats at present, are imperative to ensure the future of the resources as well as of the professional fishermen. In this connection I want to associate myself with the statement made earlier by the hon member for Uitenhage, and I want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that the issuing of A-licences will be controlled much more strictly and will be granted only to bona fide fishermen who depend on them for their livelihood.

The granting of an abalone quota and the recent increase in the sardine quota to the Gansbaai community, were measures which the hon the Minister was capable of taking at the time, but we know that these measures may not be permanent. The relief to the communities was of inestimable value, and I believe the hon the Minister did this out of comprehension as well as compassion for these communities.

I should like to believe that the hon the Minister will establish a more permanent form of stability in the position of the small fisherman. In this connection I want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that with the phasing out of the FDC, the SBDC will maintain a section specifically to take care of the interests of the small fisherman. In the second place I want to ask whether the hon the Minister, as a measure for the sake of stability, can consider dividing the pelagic quota in such a way that there will be a West Coast quota and a South Coast quota. A third point to which attention can possibly be given, is that local fishing communities retain their rightful share in the rights in respect of marine resources and benefits from them, for example the rock lobster and the abalone resources. The hon member for Uitenhage referred to this as well.

I do not want to anticipate the report and the recommendations of the Diemont Commission, but I do want to appeal to the hon the Minister to take the interests of the local communities into account when these things are considered in future.

†I say these things with great appreciation for what the hon the Minister has already done. I also say this in the knowledge that he has much understanding and that his handling of fishery affairs is based upon a very thorough understanding as well as a sensitive knowledge of the fishing industry for which I both thank and compliment him.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Caledon will forgive me if for lack of time I do not reply to his speech at all. I want to say briefly to the hon member for Uitenhage that I welcome his plea to the hon the Minister in regard to these ridiculous licences. I have to go through the whole procedure for four licences every year. It entails an enormous amount of paper work with copies and it probably takes one official in a department where I have to obtain the licence and myself about 20 minutes to fill out these forms and then I have to pay R2 to get these licences. The time involved is worth far more than that.

I want to thank the hon the Minister on behalf of Port Elizabeth for his very welcome announcement in regard to the investigation by a committee of the harbour facilities in Port Elizabeth with a view to their development. I think that Port Elizabeth has rather a superfluity of committees investigating various matters at this stage. I would appeal to the hon the Minister to ask his committee to be relatively quick with their investigation. If they can report back with solid recommendations within three months then I think that something very valuable would have been done. However, if it is going to be another of these committees that drags on and on then I believe that we will have accomplished absolutely nothing.

I spoke last year under this Vote on the subject of the establishment of a national botanical garden in Port Elizabeth. To recap briefly I pointed out that the municipality had offered 77,5 ha for such a garden in the Bakens River Valley, that a further 29 ha could be bought and that the municipality was prepared to donate R30 000 per annum towards the running costs. I pointed out that the establishment of such a garden would be labour intensive, particularly during the development stage.

The hon the Minister replied that Roodepoort had a higher priority for the development of a Transvaal garden there but that as soon as the infrastructure for Roodepoort had been completed Port Elizabeth would be considered. The hon the Minister promised that the garden in Port Elizabeth, to use his own words, would not be put on the back burner.

It obviously has not been put on that back burner because I saw in the press a month or so ago that we had a visit from Professor Eloff to Port Elizabeth and he had with him Dr D J Botha. He was apparently agreeably surprised by what he saw and I gather that he thought the Bakens River site to be an excellent one. This is all very encouraging and I now wish to request the hon the Minister to proceed with this new national park for Port Elizabeth as soon as is humanly possible.

Apart from the obvious benefit to the city and indeed the whole Eastern Cape, now would be the ideal time to start such a project because of the enormous needs of the area for employment. If we keep the bulldozers out and use people power for the ground work and development of this botanic garden then we could create a large number of very important jobs.

The second subject that I wish to deal with is fishing and the situation of deprivation in which Port Elizabeth finds itself in regard to licences and quotas. The causes are historical and I do not blame the incumbent Minister for the situation but if he does not do something about it then nobody will.

Historically the bulk of the quota has been in the hands of the major fishing companies who have made big investments. Their quota was sharply reduced a few years ago and, as and when new quota becomes available, the hon the Minister is naturally under great pressure to give it to those companies.

However, Port Elizabeth’s situation should be considered. The hon the Minister’s figures in response to question No 698 which I tabled this year are as follows: The quota for hake is 136 500 tonnes. Of this only 491 tonnes which is 0,36% go to Port Elizabeth-based operators. The quota for West Coast rock lobster is 3 809 tonnes which all go to Cape Town and West Coast operators. The quota for South Coast rock lobster is 450 tonnes and this, according to the answer I received, is being caught in the Port Elizabeth and adjacent areas. Yet who gets the quota? The hon the Minister must not shake his head as it is all in the reply I received. It is the Cape Town companies that again get the quota. Of the 450 tonnes the Atlantic Fishing Enterprises of Cape Town get 226 tonnes, Hout Bay Fishing Industries get 124 tonnes and Port Elizabeth gets nothing.

I would like to refer to a comment made on 26 February 1986 by a Mr Van Niekerk who has been in the commercial fishing business in Port Elizabeth for 16 years. He said that he had applied to the department on six separate occasions for a crayfishing licence and had been refused each time. He also said he was writing to the hon the Minister because, judging by the latter’s statements, Mr Van Niekerk did not think he really knew what was going on.

There are other problems. Fish used to be sold on the jetty in Port Elizabeth, but this was stopped by harbour trading regulations. My first plea, therefore, is for some sort of fishermen’s wharf in Port Elizabeth which could become a great tourist attraction and where local fishermen could have stalls or a market where they could sell their catch.

I prepared this speech before hearing the announcements the hon the Minister made at the beginning of this debate, and I welcome the establishment of a market in Cape Town, but I believe Port Elizabeth should have a market as well. I ask the hon the Minister to proceed with that at the earliest possible opportunity. If the Government were to clear the way from a licence and trading point of view, I am sure the private sector would do the rest.

Let me return to the quota situation. Quotas are at the moment licences to print money, as is shown by these recent newspaper headlines: February 1985—”Irvin and Johnson profits up R2 million”; August 1985—”Irvin and Johnson earnings rise by 32%”; February 1986—”Irvin and Johnson interim earnings improve”; and November 1985—”Oceana fishing group has returned greatly improved earnings”. These people are making enormous sums of money. Cannot some licences now be granted to Port Elizabeth?

I am obviously aware of the existence of the Diemont Commission, and I know it is due to report shortly.

You must just see to it that there are separate beaches in Port Elizabeth.

I appreciate that, pending the report’s appearance, the hon the Minister is unwilling to act on fishing quotas. As a result of this situation and the present economic deprivation in Port Elizabeth, and because a vibrant fishing industry could be of great benefit to the area, I wish to make certain requests of the hon the Minister.

I ask him to apply his and his department’s mind to finding out how best to go about improving Port Elizabeth’s share of the quota for all fish that are caught between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town as well as north of Port Elizabeth. This could be done as follows: Firstly, by establishing a Port Elizabeth quota to be used by existing companies conditional on their operating from Port Elizabeth and establishing all necessary shore facilities for the processing and packaging of fish there; secondly, by forming an East Cape Committee to make all decisions relative to that quota, subject naturally to the hon the Minister’s approval; and thirdly, by providing incentives to fishing companies to operate from Port Elizabeth.

I would also like the hon the Minister to ask the Diemont Commission to make recommendations as to how best to create a viable fishing industry in the Port Elizabeth area.

My third request to the hon the Minister is to ensure that the entire South Coast lobster quota is handled from Port Elizabeth, and that he has research done into this resource to maximise its use without overfishing.

Penultimately I ask him to take whatever steps he can to encourage longline fishing from Port Elizabeth.

My last request is for the establishment of Port Elizabeth as the main harbour for the chokka resource.

Never before in the history of South Africa has any major centre been in such a state of economic deprivation as Port Elizabeth is now. The hon the Minister can help Port Elizabeth, and I appeal to him to do so.

He must provide separate beaches.

Mr Chairman, to do justice to the questions which have been asked, I think I would have to ask for the privilege of the next two hours!

*I think it is important for me to say something about retirements from and new entrants to the department before I begin to reply to the various questions that were put and the various speeches that were made.

With the recent addition of the Weather Bureau to the functional sphere of the Department of Environmental Affairs, I should like to extent a cordial welcome to the Chief Director of the Weather Bureau, Mr Piet du Toit and his personnel. I should also like to extend a sincere welcome to Mr P J le Roux who accepted the position of Chief Director of Environmental Conservation with effect from 1 April 1986. I want to assure them that their valued services will help to enhance the department’s image of purposeful service, and we also hope that they will experience satisfaction in our service.

I now have a farewell message. I have learned on very good authority that Mr Dolf Brynard, Chief Director of the Board of Governors for National Parks will reach retirement age during the present financial year and will retire on pension from the service of the board before the next discussion of this vote. With the knowledge that a hard worker is not only worthy of his hire, but is also entitled to his rest, I want to pay tribute to Mr Brynard for the very difficult task he has performed with great enthusiasm and preserverance in such an excellent way, not only in the development of the national parks, but also in the national interests and in the promotion of tourism. I am sure hon members will agree with my words of thanks, also when I wish him and his wife a long period of retirement and that they may enjoy good health.

I come now to the speeches made by the respective hon members.

†The hon member for Constantia, I am quite sure, will understand that I am unable to react to all his questions and to all the interesting points he made in his speech. As to the expansion of the department, I have taken note of his remarks, but my own inclination at this stage is to say to him that, while we do have an overall brief for looking at the activities which affect the environment under whatever aspect of whatever department they may fall, we would not like to become some sort of super department which interferes with the affairs of other departments. We are quite happy for them to look after their own affairs, subject to our overall overseeing of any activities affecting the environment.

I am afraid that I am unable to answer off the cuff this evening the questions about toxic waste. However, I undertake to reply to the hon member by way of a letter containing the dates he asked for as well as replies to the other points he made. I do not have it at my fingertips.

He also referred to the possible establishment of a Schedule 1 Cape Peninsula national park. I personally, being a Peninsula man, should like to have seen such a thing but I am sure he will agree with me that it is out of the question. There are so many different authorities involved in the administration of the present nature area, to say nothing about the private property owners who also have interests in that nature area, that I do not think it is a possibility. What I do regard as a possibility is that one can perhaps consider some portions of it becoming some sort of a national park, but then under the principles of Schedule 5 and certainly not under the principles of Schedule 1. We shall have a look at that, but at the moment I do not think it is a practical suggestion.

*As regards the hon member’s reference to the Weather Bureau, I just want to say that since October 1985, the Weather Bureau has been added to the department, and a radical reorganisation of weather services is being contemplated. Of necessity we shall have to consider the replacement of expensive equipment which in many cases has become worn and obsolete. More stringent requirements for the training and qualifications of personnel will be laid down, and the weather observation network will have to be expanded. Steps are at present being taken to review these and other aspects of our weather service and if the recommendations are accepted we shall subsequently have a really efficient weather service that can warn us in time against disasters such as Domoina and the Laingsburg flood.

You can move the Weather Bureau to Port Elizabeth—the whole thing! [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to long-range forecasts, and I have already mentioned that we hope to be in a position before long where we can forecast things in advance.

He then returned to a subject which he had raised before, namely the question of the composition of the Council for the Environment. All I have to say to him is that provision has been made in legislation for the increase in the size of the Council for the Environment from 20 to 25 members. I have made suggestions in this House and in the other Houses that if there are people worthy of consideration for appointment to the Council for the Environment, I shall be pleased to have their names. Although the hon member has mentioned this matter two years running, so far I have had no recommendations from him which I can consider. As far as I am concerned we shall appoint people to the Council for the Environment on the basis of the contribution they can make, on the basis of merit and on the basis of their qualities, rather than on the colour of their skins.

He also referred briefly to the draft Bill on marine matters. I can only say that that must obviously await the findings of the Diemont Commission which is dealing specifically with quota guidelines which will have a bearing on that Bill.

In conclusion—because I cannot deal with all the matters to which he referred—I just want to refer to the question of the fish resources. Those fish resources that have been under pressure for many, many years are on the whole improving. That is why the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was in a position to refer to the very excellent returns of the various fishing companies during the past few years. They are making a lot of money out of the sea. Now, the resources are improving. The white-fish resource is healthy, and I am able to increase the global quota for the white-fish resource at the rate of 5% per year. Of that 5%—for the information of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central too—we allocate 80% to the five or six quota-holders who traditionally had quotas of up to about 180 000 tons per year. The present quota must be about 135 500 tons, if my memory serves me correctly. The other 20% is allocated by me, in my discretion, to meet what are from time to time regarded as hardship or deserving cases.

One of these cases was the one to which the hon member referred—the case of Mr Fernandez. Mr Fernandez happens to operate a factory at Hermanus. He employs a great number of Coloured people there. If, at the beginning of the year, I had not granted him a slight increase of 400 tons on his quota …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but it was an ad hoc allocation for a particular year to help him to keep those people employed, otherwise he would be out of business.

Will you make sure he does not sell it for a big profit?

Sir, the question of the pelagic resource also needs to be mentioned. Likewise, in this instance, the picture is very rosy. I am one of those who believe that our pilchard resource has recovered. I believe that we could in fact grant a higher quota this year in relation to pilchards. I prefer, however, that we should rather err on the side of caution. Therefore we should wait and see what the results are of the research programme which is being undertaken. Those results should be known by the end of this year. It does look to me, however, as though the pelagic resource has been saved, and that we can look forward to a period of growth in the pilchard resource and also in the anchovy resource.

A new resource has in fact been exploited during the past few years—that of the red eye. That is outside of the quota. This resource has, during the first year or so, made a substantial contribution to the fishing industry.

The question of foreign trawlers I will deal with very briefly. There are four foreign countries who have a small white-fish quota of 7 000 odd tons to be caught in our fishing zone. All the information available to us indicates that that quota of theirs is not harming the resources. They are allocated the quota in terms of bilateral arrangements between the different countries, and they also co-operate in the scientific research programmes which we are undertaking.

*I cannot react any further to the hon member’s speech. The hon member for Swellendam, as usual, made a very interesting speech. He spoke with great enthusiasm. He spoke inter alia about the department’s activities, and I want to thank him for doing so. He emphasised the importance of environmental education, and the hon the Deputy Minister has already reply to that. He referred furthermore to the question of coastline administration. I shall give him a reply to that now.

†The Commission for Administration has completed its investigation into coastal zone management and has recommended that the function of coastal zone management be added to the other responsibilities of this department. As a first step the Sea-Shore Act will shortly become my responsibility, and in anticipation of coastal zone management becoming the responsibility of this department negotiations have been held with the two provincial administrations concerned—those of Natal and the Cape Province—regarding the delimitation of the landward boundaries of coastal zones. Draft regulations in terms of the Environment Conservation Act to regulate coastal development were published for comment, and the comments received are now being considered. Amended regulations are to be drawn up, and in due course those too will be published. I just want to add at this stage that I hope this matter is not going to become too protracted. I shall do my best to see that that does not happen because the sooner we get control over the administration of the coastline the better for all concerned.

Some of the other speakers have also made mention of unwelcome development activities along our coastline. We have to control this. That is why we are giving priority attention to the comments that have been received and to the amended regulations.

*The hon member also referred to the Weather Bureau. I think I have already reacted to the points he raised.

The hon the Deputy Minister has already referred to the contribution made by the hon member for Meyerton. Over the years this hon member has displayed an exceptional interest in the environment, and has been particularly concerned about littering. I want to thank him for that. I was also impressed with his account of what happened at the monument. Of course one expects it from any audience that gathers at the monument. I have taken cognisance of his request for an interview in connection with littering in that area. I shall, of course, exceed to it. I am waiting to hear from him.

The hon member for Nelspruit addressed the privatisation of the commercial activities of the Directorate of Forestry. The Commission for Administration which is acting as an investigating team for the Cabinet team which is investigating privatisation, has been requested to investigate the privatisation of the commercial activities further. I also want to thank the hon member for compliments in regard to the achievements of the department in connection with the operating account and the profits it is showing.

†The hon member for Mooi River made an appeal for the Natal Parks Board to retain its independence. All I can say is that I have said on previous occasions in this House that if ever there was an example of a good element of decentralisation then it is the case of the Natal Parks Board. I can only repeat what I said before. I think that body does excellent work, and if a body does excellent work, why on earth interfere with it?

I took note of what the hon member said about privatisation and the Weza forest situation. That ties up with consolidation, and I am not in a position to give him an answer about that tonight. I will deal with that inquiry by way of letter.

The Swartberg farms are certainly still on the list for acquisition. The only question is when; and of course that depends on my friend who sits next to me, the hon Minister of Finance. As soon as funds are available, we will try to acquire those farms because we do realise it is important.

*The hon members for Albany and Ladybrand referred to the expansion of national parks. There is appreciation for the points of departure of both these hon members. An analysis was made by the National Parks Board of land requirements and the expansion of the tourism infrastructure of the national parks. This matter is being considered at present with view to meeting the needs within the limits of the financial means of the country.

†The hon member for Albany also referred to the question of discrimination in national parks. If he will bring any instances of discrimination to my attention, I will look into the matter. As I have said in this House and in the other Houses on previous occasions, discrimination is something that has been historical. It is being phased out wherever it is possible and feasible to do so. Moreover, it is the policy of this department to try to provide enough facilities for the various race groups and to see to it that incidents of discrimination which are hurtful and harmful do not occur.

*The hon member for Humansdorp made a very interesting contribution on forestry matters. He referred in particular to timber growers. As far as financial assistance to timber growers is concerned, it is a pleasure for me to inform him that the Government has approved in principle of the establishment of an afforestation incentive system, of which further particulars will in due course be made available.

The hon member Mr Theunissen referred to the funds of the Tourism Board, and pleaded for the expenditure of more funds. I agree with him, but I want to tell him that an additional R15 million was allocated to the Tourism Board during this financial year, precisely in order to further tourism to South Africa. This brings the Board’s total budget up to R54 million for the present year. I should also like to thank the hon member for the kind remarks he made in connection with the work that has been done by the SA Tourist Board. I shall convey his message to the officials of the SA Tourist Board.

If the hon member for George does not mind, I should prefer to reply to his representation by means of a letter, since my time is very limited now. He made an interesting contribution and I think and I should have a long discussion of the tourism possibilities of the southern Cape, particularly of the constituency which he has the honour to represent.

I want to thank the hon member for Uitenhage, the Chairman of the Standing Committee for his fine contribution. As usual it was very interesting. He speaks with authority on this subject, particularly on angling as a sport. We have problems with the A-licences. There were people who received A-licences but who were not entitled to them. We are at present giving attention to this matter and we have already thinned out the licences a little. At present we are considering the dubious cases. I shall in due course make a further report to the hon member in this regard.

I agree with the hon member for Uitenhage that of all the marine resources the reef fish species are the most seriously threatened. We are giving attention to the matter. As he knows, his brother serves on the marine fine fish committee and I want to give him the assurance that that committee is very active, and is doing good work to preserve the reef fish resources.

†I do not have time to deal with all the points the hon member for Constantia made about tourism. He will appreciate that I have only a couple of minutes left. I shall, likewise, deal with his questions and proposals by letter. I may just say that there is a regional tourism programme which involves our neighbouring states and the TBVC countries. We have a tourist co-ordinator, and regular meetings are held to promote tourism in Southern Africa. As I have said, I shall deal with the other points he made by letter.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon member for Caledon for the kind things he said.

*I am very pleased that I was able to be of assistance to the fishermen’s community of Gansbaai during the past few weeks with an increased quota. I was pleased that I was able to help those people. The hon member also referred to the A-licences and the abalone quota. I want to give the hon member the assurance that the fact that Fishcor is now be phased out and that the financial activities of that body are now being transferred to the Small Business Development Corporation, does not mean that we will not consider the problems and the needs of the fishing’s community along the West Coast with great compassion. The SBDC have taken over the officials of Fishcor and those officials will specifically look after the interests and the needs of the fishing’s communities. I can assure the hon member of that.

†In the last half-minute at my disposal I should like to refer to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. It is easy to ask questions and for me as a Minister to give answers and then for the hon member to draw certain conclusions. There is a long historical reason for most of the quotas that have been awarded over the years in the various sectors of the fishing industry. For example, the first trawling company in South Africa—in the 1880’s I think it was—actually was launched from Port Elizabeth. Another company was then formed in Cape Town that bought out the Port Elizabeth company. Cape Town then became the headquarters of that company.

A lot of the explanations the hon member requires I am able to give him. I will try to give the hon member written replies to some of them, but I would like to say to him that when I said at the outset of this debate that we were going to look at the question of each of the harbours, I obviously included Port Elizabeth as well. The Burggraaf Committee is going to look at the situation there with a view to not only pleasure-boat facilities but also commercial facilities and, in some harbours, residential components within the harbour areas. The hon member can rest assured that I am in constant touch with the hon members for the Port Elizabeth area, Newton Park, Despatch, and PE North and others, who have been speaking to me for months and months. I am aware of the problems of Port Elizabeth and I am doing what I can to try to alleviate them. [Interjections.]

The national botanical garden?

I have good news insofar as a national botanical garden is concerned, but I do not have the time to tell the hon member about that. I will give him a written reply in that regard. [Interjections.]

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.