Order! I refer to the notice by the hon member for Houghton, Mrs H Suzman, on today’s Order Paper, of a motion relating to the conduct of a judge of the Supreme Court in his capacity as such. The contemplated motion does not comply with the requirements as stated in my ruling last Wednesday in which I gave the reasons for declining to accept her petition on the same subject. I have instructed the Secretary to remove the notice from the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to point out that your ruling denies a member of Parliament the opportunity specifically mentioned firstly by Mr Speaker Jansen, in Votes and Proceedings of 13 March 1935, in which he stated:

This is also borne out, may I point out, by Kilpin, in Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa, on page 89, under the heading “Rules of debate”, in which he states:

He then goes on to mention the Governor General, Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, members, judges or the Controller and Auditor General.

Thirdly, Erskine May in the 20th edition of his Parliamentary Practice, on page 378, states:

Well, Sir, I submit my motion does in fact admit of a vote of the House. Erskine May also states, on page 430 of the same edition:

He then goes on to mention the persons who may not be criticised except by substantive motion, and again judges are included in the list of persons he gives. I have the full reference here if you should wish to look at it, Sir.

It appears to me that since this exception is being made—that is that a substantive motion may be brought in order to discuss the conduct of a judge—my motion is in order, and I should like you to reconsider your ruling on that basis.

Could I also point out to you, Sir, the example of the hon member for Sandton? You will remember referring his comments in this House on Mr Justice Munnik to a select committee of Parliament in order to discuss whether or not he had breached privilege in this House.

The hon member for Sandton was asked to apologize because it was decided that he had breached a privilege of Parliament in that he had not brought a substantive motion when he wished to criticise the judge. The relevant part of the Select Committee’s findings reads as follows:

1. (i) it is an established and recognized parliamentary practice that no attack other than by way of a substantive motion may be made in Parliament on a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa in his judicial capacity, or regarding his honour or personal conduct,
2. (ii) Mr D J Dalling in the course of his said speech failed to abide by this practice and acted in conflict therewith; and
3. (iii) Mr J D Dalling should present his apologies for the aforesaid breach in writing to Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I have no desire to have to present my apology in writing or any other way to you for a breach of privilege and therefore I have taken the recognized, accepted, historical way in which a member of Parliament may criticise a judge of the Supreme Court. On those grounds I ask you, Mr Speaker, to reconsider your ruling.

Order! I have listened carefully to the hon member and I should prefer to furnish the hon member with a written reply at the commencement of the proceedings in this House tomorrow afternoon.

Meanwhile, I just wish to point out to the hon member that a substantive motion as such also has to comply with certain requirements, and such a motion is submitted to Mr Speaker for his consideration in the light of those requirements. Mr Speaker may decide, in his discretion, whether or not such a motion has been properly substantiated.

I also want to assure the hon member that, as she knows, I have very carefully considered the authorities she quoted and that I have taken cognisance of them. I have also examined all other provisions relating to the Rules, and I shall furnish the hon member with a written ruling in this connection tomorrow afternoon.

Mr Speaker, a further point of order. May I ask—in considering your detailed ruling in respect of the point of order raised—whether that ruling should not also consider the possible reference of this issue to the Rules Committee of Parliament. I raise this because it is accepted now that one cannot other than by way of substantive motion criticise a judge. But the ruling that has already been given—and I accept that it was not given in a formal way—is to the effect that one cannot move a substantive motion unless it is accepted in the discretion of the Speaker. That would appear to put the right of people to criticise a judge totally in the hands of the Speaker in these circumstances.

Order! Has the hon member read the relevant Rules in this respect?

Mr Speaker, I have listened carefully …

Rule 89 and other Rules?

Mr Speaker, I listened very carefully to your words today which were “in the discretion of the Speaker”. I want to suggest …

I was referring to the relevant Rules …

Yes, Rules 188 and 189.

… which relate to this, which refer to the Speaker as such. I am just asking whether the hon member has read those Rules.

Mr Speaker, the point that I am raising, which I believe the hon member is raising, is a point which attempts to be helpful.

I am listening.

It attempts to be helpful. There is an impasse situation which appears to have arisen as a result of Parliament’s decision in respect of Mr Dalling and the Speaker’s decision in respect of Mrs Suzman’s action today. I would respectfully suggest that—because of a dilemma which appears to have arisen—one way in which it could be considered, inter alia, would be referring this matter to the Rules Committee.

Order! The Rules Committee is not there to make decisions for the Speaker as such in the House. There is a procedure to be followed in respect of the Rules Committee but I will take note of what the hon member has said.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: Does this, in terms of your ruling, only apply to judges or does it also apply to other office-bearers?

Order! I am not to be questioned on my ruling. As I have already said, I shall give a ruling on this matter at the start of the proceedings tomorrow afternoon. If the hon member then wishes to raise a point of order he is welcome to do so.

Mr Speaker, with respect, I was not questioning your ruling. I was simply attempting to find out the ramifications and the extent thereof. It was not questioning. It was purely an attempt to find out whether it extends wider than judges.

Order! May I respectfully interrupt the hon member? I am not prepared always to be questioned by hon members immediately after I have given a ruling. There is a procedure laid down which hon members who are not satisfied with the Speaker’s ruling can follow. I am respectfully asking the hon member to follow that procedure. In this case he should wait for the ruling tomorrow afternoon and then he can decide whether to raise a further point of order. I therefore ask the hon member’s assistance in this regard.

With pleasure, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, this Bill deals with the question of rape within the marriage. I know the hon the Minister to be a very serious person. I therefore wonder whether it is with a degree of irony or with a degree of humor that, precisely at a time such as this, he has come forward with a Bill on rape and the refusal to subject oneself within the marriage, while at this stage there are a number of marital problems within the marriage of the NP caucus. [Interjections.] In this marriage the one leader is refusing to subject him or herself to the other leader. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is therefore coming forward with a Bill in this regard at a very critical stage in the history of the NP.

Rape by consent! [Interjections.]

Hon members of the NP need not be so upset about that. We know they are upset, but they do not have to show it in that way. Hon members are belying themselves by making it so obvious. [Interjections.] Just be calm. We know the hon members are having difficulty, and we are very sympathetic towards them. [Interjections.] The present legal position is, of course, that a man may not rape his wife. In terms of our law at present, the element of violence has disappeared and the absence of permission is a prerequisite for a conviction. We must also bear in mind the problem of forced sexual intercourse between marriage partners. According to Mr Justice Kriegler this is—

This is indeed a very sensitive matter. On the one hand, one can hide behind the juridical curtain of irrevocable permission to have intercourse at the time of entering into the marriage, and on the other hand, there is the misuse of this by unscrupulous sadists. The caucus of the CP conducted a thorough debate in its own ranks in this regard. We did not arrive at any final conclusion with regard to this specific question, but with regard to the Bill as it reads at present, the CP unanimously rejects it. The basic reason for this is that the so-called new crime which is being created, is in fact an artificial one. The hon the Minister himself admitted as much in his reply in the debate in the House of Delegates:

He went on to say that this would not satisfy the purists.

Are you a purist?

I am a purist and so is hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

He said—

That is how the Law Commission put it to the hon the Minister as well. I quote further from what the hon the Minister said:

He went on to say that the Police would be inundated with complaints and that it would take a long time before this matter was clarified. This is not good enough seeing that the hon the Minister has the advantage of a very clear submission from the Law Commission. The Bill came a long way before it was put before this House. The Bill has already been on the Order Paper on two previous occasions. Unfortunately the two CP members who served on the joint committee are not here today. They have other appointments and apologise for not being present.

In terms of the new Rules, it was not possible for them to submit a minority report in the joint committee, and for that reason we are now taking this opportunity to share a few ideas on this subject with the hon the Minister.

This legislation has two aspects. Clause 1 deals with the aspect of assault or possibly rape, the so-called creation of a new crime. We are therefore dealing with criminal law here and I shall return to this later.

Clause 2 deals with the law of criminal procedure and the admissible evidence which can be given in a criminal case. It deals with evidence of character. It protects a woman against questions about her character and sexual experience or evidence to that effect, except with the permission of the court, which will only be granted if the evidence is relevant. However, this does not exclude evidence and questioning in this connection if it is submitted with regard to the offence before the court at that moment. An application for permission to question, for example, a prostitute about previous instances, where sexual experience is relevant for the purposes of credibility, is heard in camera by the court and the female witness involved can even be excluded from this.

We also welcome the amendment of section 227 (1), (2) and (3) and the provision which deals with homosexuality. We therefore support clause 2. It is unnecessary and humiliating to be subjected to cross-examination about intimate matters, which sometimes simply serves to embarrass the witness to such an extent that she appears to lack credibility, while the facts on which she is being cross-examined have nothing to do with the offence before the court.

We cannot support clause 1 and we said as much in the joint committee. In this regard we said:

These are the amendments that we proposed and in this regard we rely entirely on the evidence of Mr Justice Kriegler with regard to this matter. By way of conclusion, I should like to quote some of his words:

He says that the new Bill is undesirable and furthermore:

In reality, that is our case. We are saying that it is artificial. We are saying that the very clear and unambiguous wording of the proposal of the SA Law Commission is far more acceptable for debate, but as it is at the moment, it is neither one thing nor the other. It is unacceptable and we will therefore vote against it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan tried to make politics of this matter by referring to so-called marital problems in the NP. I should like to give him some very good advice. I think the CP, who seldom have a chance to enjoy themselves, must make good use of the opportunity now, because it is not going to last. [Interjections.] The NP is going to come out of this quickly and will be much stronger than they are now. [Interjections.]

I am very grateful for the concession the hon member for Brakpan made in saying that this was a complicated and sensitive matter. Obviously that is also true as a result of the fact that the CP caucus could not reach unanimity on it. It is also clear that they did not accept the original proposal of the SA Law Commission. I am grateful for that.

The hon member for Brakpan said this measure before the House was artificial. What does it do, however? It requests greater punishment where assault is related to sexual violation. I want to suggest that this is a pure, acceptable and essential measure in South Africa’s present circumstance.

†By the adoption of this Bill Parliament is sending a strong message to the courts and our society that violence in marriage, especially where it forms part of sexual abuse, cannot be tolerated and that it should be punished more severely. Parliament is sending this message while at the same time respecting the unique character of marriage and also attempting to preserve it as an institution in our society.

*Reference has been made to the fact that this matter had a very long preamble before it was dealt with by the joint committee. The committee consulted about this matter for more than two years and representations were also requested from the public. Widely divergent representations were received. Initially 59 representations were received from various organisations and people, and after a few possibilities had crystallised, those possibilities were referred to judgepresidents, advocate-generals and regional court presidents for their opinions.

One thing is very clear after this investigation, viz that this is an inextremely sensitive matter. The Latin adage quot homines tot sententiae is definitely applicable to this emotional matter.

One must also say, however, with reference to the last group of lawyers to whom the matter was referred, of whom all are very experienced, that there was very little support from that group for the initial proposal. Of the approximately 17 who replied, only four were in favour of the original proposal made to the committee.

What compelled the committee to abandon the Law Commission’s proposal that a man can rape his legal wife? In the first place, as was mentioned, this is a thorny issue which affects almost every person in the community. There are many sharp differences on the matter, many of which are based on strong religious convictions. I should like to refer to page 34 of the Law Commission’s report, where the following appears:

Had the committee adopted the proposal of the Law Commission, they would definitely have affronted religious convictions.

I want to suggest that the fact that there are different standpoints and that this is a sensitive matter was proved dramatically by the standpoints adopted by the Press as well as by women’s organisations after this Bill became known, and those standpoints contradicted one another totally.

The second consideration is that rape is a very serious crime, punishable by the highest penalty, the death penalty. It is a crime that is despised by the community and is placed under terrible sanction by the community itself. It is absolutely unthinkable that this serious crime can take place within marriage. One must remember that rape can take place without violence. The strongest proof that this proposal in its pure form is unacceptable, can be seen in the artificial proposals that were made to evade these consequences. Some of those artificial proposals came from the CP.

Examples of such proposals are that the Bill should state that the Advocate-General alone can decide on this matter. That would violate the sense of justice, because one of the greatest demands with regard to legislation, especially when it comes to the determination of crimes, is that it should be objective and clear to those who may be affected by it. The implementation of the legislation should not be dependent upon personal preferences or personal feelings.

Other examples of proposals that the original crime of rape should be changed, are that it should refer only to violence or be applicable only in cases in which the couple is no longer living together. There was also the proposal made by the CP, that in such a case a charge should be laid at a magistrate’s office first of all, that that magistrate should issue a certificate probabilis causa and that that magistrate can also institute an investigation. It is completely contrary to the spirit of the South African law of criminal procedure to bring a magistrate into the investigative system.

Apart from these proposals, there are problems with the definition of living together. When are a husband and wife still living together and when are they not? Then there are problems with regard to the reconciliation between couples, because intercourse has always been regarded as a condonation when it comes to divorce cases.

A third consideration is that common law has been built up over hundreds and thousands of years, and there must be very good reasons for changing it. The committee was not satisfied that such good reasons had emerged.

A fourth consideration is that the acceptance of the proposal would undoubtedly lead to an increase in the already too high divorce rate. Because rape is such a serious crime, we are convinced that only the threat of a possible charge of divorce, which is not applicable in the case of a threat of assault, would mean the end of a marriage. One must remember that love and hatred are very close and that one can very easily lay a charge of rape in the heat of the moment, and because it is such a serious charge, this would simply mean the end of the marriage. [Interjections.] An investigation of a charge of this kind would also have to be reconciled …

Order! The hon member must please resume his seat for a moment. I have taken cognisance of the references I have just heard here on my left. There will be no reference in this House to hon members as some kind of animal in the animal kingdom. The remark about crocodiles will no longer be permitted in the House, especially not in the sense in which it was used. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the fifth and most important consideration is that the crime of rape cannot be reconciled with the nature and the essence of marriage. The essence of marriage requires conjugal fidelity, but also mutual accessibility. If the proposal is accepted it will definitely change the nature of marriage. I should like to refer to the submission of the Women’s League, who put it as follows:

In this connection one can also refer to 1 Cor 7:3-5. I want to tell hon members that perhaps they should keep this reference handy. They may be able to use it. Paul said:

There is support for this in the recent court case of State v H, 1985 (2) South African Court Reports 750 (N) on page 754. I should like to read the following expert from this court case:

It is simply unacceptable for one partner to be subject to the highest penalty—even in cases in which no violence has taken place—if the other party unreasonably refuses sexual accessibility and that party is left unpunished. This is the kind of inexplicable situation that arises when criminal procedure becomes involved with the most intimate things in the law of family.

Prof Dhlamini of the University of Zululand inter alia expressed himself most strongly on this matter, and I agree with him.

A sixth consideration is that evidence given by district surgeons indicated that the implementation of the proposal would give rise to great problems with regard to law of evidence.

A seventh consideration is that there are other remedies at the disposal of the wife. When she feels that she is being abused, she should request a divorce or an interdict. When there is violence she can make a charge of assault. In terms of this Bill, stricter punishment can then be imposed, but there will still be a chance to save the marriage. In the case of a charge of rape or a conviction on a count of rape, that marriage will undoubtedly be destroyed.

In conclusion I should like to thank all hon members for the good spirit in which the consultations took place. It was not easy to reach this solution. It is not a clinical matter which can be resolved purely by discussion of the legal aspects. The interests of the community and a sound marital and family life had to be priorities in finding a solution.

With that in mind I do not have the slightest doubt that this legislation provides the correct solution. It addresses the problem of violence in marriage and emits a strong message to the community that violence that is associated with sexual violation should be punished more severely. This is being done, however, without assailing the essence of marriage.

Mr Speaker, it augurs ill for the fate of the latest recommendation of the Law Commission on the Bill of Rights if it is going to receive the same sort of treatment as has been meted out by the joint committee which considered the Report of the Law Commission on Project 45: “Women and Sexual Offences in South Africa”.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has quoted widely in defence of the position taken up by the majority of members on the joint committee. What he of course omitted to quote were the conclusions by the Law Commission Report itself, because they are contrary to the quotations which he used.

I must say—if I may use the expression—that the hon member seemed to be shedding crocodile tears concerning the end of a marriage as a result of a man being charged with the rape of his wife. I would say that the marriage must have been pretty well at an end at that time anyway, so it is not bringing the matter to court and the charging of the husband which is going to end the marriage. The marriage has already ended.

When we leave that aside and come to the Bill itself, we see that the legislation which we are considering today emanates from this Project 45, which was an in-depth report by the Law Commission.

I have to say that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, as chairman of the select committee which considered the legislation exercised considerable patience in allowing a great deal of discussion and several meetings on this subject. In no way did he inhibit the expression of different opinions at those meetings.

I would like to mention that the Law Commission commenced its investigations as far back as 1982 and it reported in April 1985. It examined a vast amount of literature on the subject and went through numerous court cases and the position in other countries. It gives a very comprehensive survey of what the situation is in other countries as regards making the rape of a husband on his wife a punishable offence, as rape.

Even in Russia?

Especially now in Russia with all its glasnost, perestroika and all the movements towards friendship to Russia. Perhaps we should follow their example in this respect anyway.

In Australia also, but there cases have never been brought to court. In some states in America and, by the way, in Israel, the rape of a wife by the husband is a punishable offence.

The Law Commission submitted questionnaires to judges, attorneys-general, magistrates, public prosecutors, members of the Bar and Side Bar, relevant Government departments, university faculties, The Medical Association of SA, welfare organisations, churches, rape crisis organisations and women’s organisations. The research conducted by the Law Commission was of an extremely wide and in-depth nature.

Apart from sending out questionnaires, it has held discussions with attorneys-general and prosecutors, district surgeons, the police, Government departments etc. It actually held a well-attended seminar on rape in 1984 which was addressed by experts. Out of all this emerged the report on Project 45, including a draft Bill. In paragraph 2.43 on page 36 of the Law Commission’s Report, the commission came to the conclusion that the rule that a man cannot be guilty of rape on his wife should be abolished, but that no prosecution of this nature should be instituted without the permission of the Attorney-General. In other words, I presume that the power could not be delegated if this had been accepted.

This, in essence, was the Bill that was submitted to the Parliamentary Select Committee which was appointed in September 1987. The only other clause, apart from the main clause which is clause 1, referred to evidence of character and the exclusion of persons from the hearings. That we have no objection to and, by the way, this particular provision included males. It was not only applied to females but males as well.

The select committee deliberated for some 10 meetings, as the chairman will remember, between September 1987 and 7 February 1989. It called for papers and received 58 written submissions, among which were 17 replies to a questionnaire from judges and attorneys-general setting out the clauses as proposed by the Law Commission. It also proposed two alternatives. It proposed that the clause should reads as follows:

1. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the common law a man may be held criminally responsible for raping his lawful wife.
2. (2) A prosecution shall not be instituted against a man for the rape or attempted rape of his lawful wife except on instructions from the attorney-general within whose area of jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have been committed.

The two alternatives that were submitted were as follows. Alternative one read as follows:

The second alternative reads as follows:

What happened to the questionnaire sent out to judges and others about these proposals? Three persons, the Acting Judge President of the Cape Provincial Division and the Attorneys-General of both Kimberley and Pretoria wanted the status quo. In other words, they wanted no change to the existing law so that rape by a husband on his wife could not under any circumstance be considered an offence.

Seven wanted the first alternative. They were the Regional Court Presidents of Natal and the Northern Transvaal, the Judge President of the Northern Cape Division of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of South Africa and the Attorneys-General of Johannesburg, Cape Town and Pietermaritzburg.

One person wanted the second alternative and he was the Regional Court President of the Eastern Cape.

Four persons wanted clause 1 as proposed by the Law Commission—that is that rape by a husband on his wife is rape and could carry penalties accordingly. Those four were the Judge President of the Eastern Cape Division of the Supreme Court, the Regional Court President of the Southern Transvaal, the Regional Court President of the Northern Cape and the Attorney-General for Bloemfontein, the hon the Minister’s home town.

Two persons opted for no particular provisions but they made comments: one was the Judge President of Natal and the other was the Judge President of the Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court.

In any event, after a long argument the joint committee opted for the second alternative. That is, in fact, the one that was least favoured—least favoured because only one person supported it. Thus the one that got only one vote, that is the second alternative, was the one which finally was accepted by the joint committee after a lot of argument. I have to say at once that I find this rather peculiar, not funny peculiar, but peculiar.

Here we have the Law Commission—at considerable expense to the taxpayer—sitting for over two and a half years, engaged in many hours of discussion and consultation whereafter its recommendations are totally ignored. That is why I say it augurs ill for the fate of the Law Commission’s Report on the Bill of Rights which has recently been issued.

We have learned gents of the legal profession who were asked their opinion by the joint committee and they too are ignored and the recommendation of one person out of 17 consulted is accepted. That is a most extraordinary thing. So we end up with a provision which means very little except that it focuses the court’s attention on the fact that there is a statutory directive regarding what is an offence anyway and that is assault. Assault is in any case an offence. And very important is that the directive does not apply to those very many people who live together in a marriage-like relationship—they live together but they are not married. In this case the directive does not apply at all.

The hon member for Sandton, who was the other PFP member on the joint committee, and I supported the original clause as suggested by the Law Commission. We were supported by the two CP members on the joint committee both of whom said very flatly—and I agree entirely—rape is rape and it does not matter whether it is by husband on his wife or rape by a man on a strange women. Rape is rape and to my mind that is the modern and intelligent view to take. As I have said, we were supported only by the two CP members. The entire NP representation on the joint committee—including the one woman member—voted against the Law Commission’s report. All the House of Delegates members minus one voted against the clause as well as all the House of Representatives members on the commission. Therefore alternative clause 2 was accepted. The hon member for Sandton and I let that pass at that stage because it was the lesser of two evils. It did mean at least that the judge’s attention was focused on the fact that force had been used in the commission of sexual intercourse and therefore it had to be taken into consideration that if the couple had not been married, this could have been considered as rape, and therefore there would have been a heavier penalty imposed.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member whether the PFP was unanimous about this.

I said that one member of the House of Delegates voted against it. In the end I think he was so scared of me that he voted with us! [Interjections.]

This Bill introduces no real change to the existing law. [Interjections.] Husbands can continue—I am sure hon members are listening very eagerly to this—more or less with impunity, to rape their wives. There is no fear about that.

Finally, I want to say that the report of the joint committee does not reflect the dissatisfaction of the minority on the committee as was pointed out earlier this afternoon by the hon member for Brakpan. I want to place on record my repugnance of the distinctly chauvinistic undertone of the report which implies its agreement with an archaic view of a wife’s duty towards her husband. In other words she is his chattel and must be available to him. Whether he is drunk or disorderly or whatever, she must make herself available to him whenever he has the impulse for sexual intercourse. The report gives the wrong impression by stating baldly that the recommendation …

What paragraph is the hon member referring to?

I am obviously not referring to the report of the Law Commission but to that of the joint committee.

What paragraph?

About paragraph 3 or 4. I will show it to the hon the Minister if he cannot find it. We managed to get some of it chucked out in the joint committee.

Is the hon member referring then to paragraphs that have been chucked out?

No, but even the one that was left in, also gives the impression. I will immediately admit that there was a much worse one that quoted from some judge or other—I hope that I am allowed to criticise a judge in this respect—who gave the most unbelievably archaic view of the wife’s duty to her husband. That was to be put in then with the approval of the joint committee, and after a protracted argument we managed to get that removed. Paragraph 4, however, also gives a distinct chauvinistic impression of a wife’s duty towards her husband.

Finally, Sir, I want to point out that the joint committee report gives entirely the wrong impression by stating boldly that the recommendations of the Law Commission were not unanimous. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I am reminded today of the legislation which was tabled by General Hertzog in this House in 1930, when women were granted political rights. To avoid the issue becoming a party-political controversy the hon members were allowed a free vote according to their conscience and convictions. Today I would ask the hon members of the opposition parties in this House to vote according to their own conscience and conviction, for this legislation has no party-political connotations. It is there for the benefit of the women of South Africa.

The joint committee which dealt with the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill, in introducing the new clause seeks to uphold the sanctity of marriage, while at the same time recognising the human frailties and weaknesses of man. [Interjections.] The joint committee has dealt in depth and with empathy with what has been one of the most controversial Bills that has yet come before Parliament, a Bill pertaining to the most intimate and the most sensitive relationship—that between a husband and wife in the intimacy of the bedroom. The recommendation contained in the original Bill of 1987 that a husband may be prosecuted for the rape of his wife is of a highly emotional nature, and this is evident from all the evidence given by a broad strata of a diversified South African people.

This is borne out by the fact that this aspect evoked intense discussion during the South African Law Commission’s Seminar, and when the matter was put to the vote there was almost a dichotomy of views—those in favour of the status quo and those in favour of the abolition of the husband’s immunity from prosecution. Ordinary men and women in the street, the backbone of our society, expressed strong opinions in both directions. No substantial consensus could be reached.

It must be remembered here that the death penalty can be imposed on someone convicted of rape. It is said that rape defiles the lives of those it touches. Wives remain the mute and hidden victims, and one might ask what transforms a man, a husband you may think you know and trust and love, into an aggressor who could force his wife to have sex against her will. It is said that the more research discovers about the primary motivation behind the act of rape the more it becomes obvious that it is an explosive release, not of sex but of anger, aggression and violence. It has far more to do with the rapist’s feeling of inadequacy and inferiority than with his sex drive. Therefore I believe the measure before the House today that rape should be regarded by a court of law as an aggravating circumstance in the passing of sentence is correct within a marriage only.

No man has the right to violate or assault his wife—the mother of his children. Brutal or insensitive treatment of women should never be condoned or ignored. It can too easily become dangerous. The Divorce Act of 1979 has made it possible for a wife who has suffered so much degredation to opt out of an unhappy marriage.

In an article which appeared in the Cape Times of 9 March 1989, Lori Heise, a researcher with the World Watch Institute in Washington, said:

I want the women of South Africa to know that the laws of our country are there to protect them and their children in circumstances such as these.

Mr Speaker, I support the sentiments expressed by the hon member Mrs Chait. There is also no doubt that the hon member for Houghton is sincere about a very serious problem which manifests itself in all walks of life and in all communities.

I shall endeavour to highlight certain complexities and consequences which must be understood and addressed if wife abuse in all its manifestations in our social interaction and intimate relationships is to be eliminated.

The hon member for Houghton made mention of the report of the Law Commission and in this regard her attention should again be drawn to the fact that the report was divided on certain of the issues. This, however, does not mean that the social problem should be ignored; on the contrary, the Bill before the House is the joint committee’s suggestion as to how the matter should be dealt with at this stage.

*The fundamental problem which has made the legislation before the House essential, is extremely complex. There is no doubt that everyone present here has an understanding of the invidious dilemma in which some married women find themselves. The sorrow, distress and pain which some women suffer and endure, is frequently indescribable. Aside from this, they often feel that they are powerless whenever they are abused sexually or assaulted by their husbands. Sometimes they are caught up in a vicious circle. If a woman is assaulted, she fears further assaults if she were to institute legal proceedings against her husband. Either wife abuse is on the increase, or wives are more inclined these days to discuss it openly and to complain about it. This socially objectionable behaviour is in my view a problem which ought to be addressed on a far wider front than only that of the administration of justice. I think the time has arrived for our research institutes or universities to launch a co-ordinated, multi-disciplinary and thorough investigation by experts. The real fundamental causes of this social maladjustment ought to be identified. Thereafter sensible preventative measures may be thought out and developed. The problem ought to be addressed jointly by psychologists, marriage councillors, medical doctors, legal practitioners, judges, policemen, social workers, psychiatrists, theologists, educators and others.

It also quickly became evident at the sitting of the joint committee that this problem also has a certain distinctive cultural angle and for this reason cultural leaders of the rich variety of cultural communities should also participate in such a brain-storming session. In addition to this, a man and woman from every category ought also to be present and then, to complete the complement, there ought also to be certain affected people who may make a contribution on such an occasion.

Sexual intercourse is an essential component of marriage. Mr Justice Young of the former Rhodesian Supreme Court said in the case of T v T 1968 (3) SA 554 (R) on page 55, “conjugal love embraces three components” and he then identified these three components as passion, companionship and self-giving or brotherly love. In addition to the marriage ceremony it is also necessary for the marriage to be consummated. It is common knowledge that deliberate refusal by one of the parties to consummate the marriage has always been regarded as malicious desertion under the old dispensation, and in present day matrimonial law it will be accepted as proof of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

The initial request before the joint committee was to have sexual intercourse in marriage without the permission of the wife placed on the Statute Book as rape and hence a crime. This would mean that a man who had sexual intercourse with his wife without her permission, could be found guilty of rape and that he would be punished accordingly. Because violence does not form part of the crime of rape, it could happen that the wife refuses her permission for intercourse. She could then decide not to offer any resistance, for fear that her resistance may be repaid with violence. In practice, however, the overwhelming majority of rapes are accompanied by violence. In some cases the women suffer injuries, which vary from slight to fairly serious. It is precisely in these cases that action on the part of the authorities is being requested.

It must be remembered that if rape within the marriage were to be placed on the Statute Book as a further crime, a person who was found guilty of such a crime would run the risk of paying the supreme price for his actions. I think there is a far more humane way for a wife to get rid of her husband. For example, she could quite simply divorce him; this would also obviate the danger of the father of her children dying on the gallows.

It is interesting to note that those people who want to have the crime of rape within the marriage placed on the Statute Book, do not want the cruel penalty. They argue that it will deter the husbands and restrain them from committing cruel deeds. Although punishment does serve as a deterrent, this argument is not entirely sound. Even capital crimes, with their inherent risk of punishment, are still committed. Therefore, some or other form of plan must be devised in order to take preventive rather than retributive action. Where the person is found guilty of rape or of contravening the provisions of this Bill before the House, he will, at least, have a prison sentence imposed upon him.

A great deal may be said about the social problems of a family when the breadwinner is serving a prison sentence. The inevitable implication must be taken into account by the wife when, possibly in an emotional state, she goes and lays a charge with the police against her husband. The joint committee recommended that the crime of rape within the marriage relationship should be created. In my opinion the proposed provision comes closer to the crux of the problem which wives are experiencing, namely assault, and more specifically, sexual assault on them by their husbands.

The wife ought to know what her options and the consequences thereof are if her husband were to have sexual intercourse with her against her will. If this was part of an assault on her, she will be able to lay a charge against him, and upon conviction he will be given a heavy sentence. In a certain sense this is a confirmation of the present common law position.

This will mean that he will be taken out of the milieu of the family and the marriage. The wife will then be without her husband and without his earnings for a certain period, because if a prison sentence is imposed, it is highly likely that he will lose his job. When he is subsequently released after a long period, the chances of reconciliation in the marriage will be slight. Not only will the wife not wish to be married to a jailbird, but hon members must remember that he will have been sent to jail precisely because his wife had laid a charge against him because he had had sexual intercourse with her against her will. The wife will have to continually bear these realities in mind.

There are, of course, also the idealists who would like the marriage to be preserved under these circumstances, but who at the same time insist that the man should be punished severely for his misdeeds against his wife. In my view, once the man has served his prison sentence for his behaviour, it will be the end of the marriage. If the court were to give the man a suspended sentence, then I predict a marriage without one of its essential components. The man may withhold himself from sexual intercourse with his wife for fear of imprisonment. Interestingly enough, this would entitle the wife to obtain a divorce from her husband.

Under the circumstances it is indeed necessary that this legislation be adopted in order to create a renewed awareness among husbands of the consequences of their thoughtless deeds. On the other hand, wives must know that they, too, will be affected by the implementation of this Bill.

The more I look at the problem, the more I come to the conclusion that marriage education from a multi-disciplinary angle has become essential in our modern society, if we are to have any hope of saving affected marriages. I have a great deal of appreciation and praise for the work which the marriage guidance councillors have already done in this field.

On behalf of this side of the House, I am pleased to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I wish to confine myself pertinently to the question as to whether the proposed clause 1, as formulated at present, does in fact succeed in its aim. I draw the conclusion from the wording of this clause that the intention is to circumvent the problems and objections which would exist with regard to making rape within the marriage an independent crime whilst at the same time not letting the person concerned go unpunished. In my view this is the reason for the compromise that is embodied in the amended clause 1. My answer to this is that I do not believe this is what is happening. I do not believe the matter is being alleviated by the present clause 1. I shall explain why I say this. We know that at present the definition of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman without her permission, but the formulation in this clause requires that before this clause may be made applicable, all those elements that are involved in rape as a crime must be alleged and proved. What happens here? Rape is alleged and proved, but it is called assault. My standpoint is that this is not correct. It serves no purpose to say that it is assault if in truth it is rape. A cow does not become a horse because one calls her that. She remains what she is. It remains rape.

It would appear that the intention in the normal case of rape is that the mere absence of permission is sufficient, but here it would appear that the intention is now that violence must be brought into assault. That is where violence fits in now. The question arises as to whether, if one had to draw up a charge sheet in the case in question, the charge sheet would have to show that the person was guilty of assault because he had had sexual intercourse with his wife without her permission. The question now arises as to where violence must be attached. Is the violence to be attached to the assault, because it is not necessary for rape? If one attaches it to the assault, one has the problem that there are two forms of assault. We know about the form of assault that is accompanied by violence, but there is also the form of assault that is not accompanied by direct violence, such as a mere threat, for example. The question once again is whether the violence is relevant to the assault or the rape.

The problem is where the nexus between these two aspects lies. This is not made clear in the proposed legislation, and that is why we say that this is going to create problems. Assault is, as I have said, the unlawful, intentional direct or indirect application of violence to the body of another person. There is also the other side. It can also be a mere threat of violence. We are now faced with the question of the objections that were raised to the establishment of this crime in its independent form, as appears from the committee’s report.

My problem is this. Every one of the reasons advanced by the committee is just as valid in so far as the present formulation of clause 1 is concerned, and this should really form an argument as to why clause 1 should not be applied. That is the basis for every one of these reasons. The acceptance of clause 1, says the committee, would lead to “an increase in the already high divorce rate”. My question is: If one alleges the rape—one must allege it in order to be able to prove it—then surely this is also going to lead to a higher divorce rate, because rape, and indeed the more serious form of rape, viz rape accompanied by violence, will still be alleged.

If the series of factors that are mentioned here can indeed serve as a motivation as to why the independent crime of rape should not be established, then they remain just as valid, because those very same reasons apply in the definition of the crime with regard to assault as it exists at present. Every one of them applies.

According to the report it is undesirable that use should be made of the criminal law. If that is to hold true here, then it holds just as true for the present formulation. Reference is made to problems with the law of evidence. Every one of these reasons remains just as valid.

It therefore does no good to call it by another name. If it is correct in the initial motivation to say that we must not thereby create an independent crime, then that motivation holds just as true for this attempt to amend clause 1. It is also applicable to the question of the remedies. If it is said that there are adequate remedies, that holds true in this case as well.

We say quite simply that a choice must be made. The original Bill 106-87 states that a husband, notwithstanding any common-law provision to the contrary, may be held criminally liable owing to the rape of his lawful wife. If we keep to that, we have no problems. On the other hand, if these objections which were mentioned by the committee are valid, they remain valid and the whole of clause 1, just as it is, must also be withdrawn in its entirety. It is one or the other. In essence there has been not change because, as I have already said, we are faced with the problem that a rape must still be proved.

I shall content myself with briefly indicating our attitude. One may not give a thing another name and think that one is escaping from the reality of the situation. A clear choice must be made. A large number of practical problems are going to arise with regard to this matter. In the one instance it is sufficient in terms of the clause if normal rape, which by definition is unaccompanied by violence, can be proved. Then it is a crime. That is the problem we have.

That is why we say that this clause in its present form is inadequate and that for that reason we shall vote against it. As far as we are concerned, what is at issue here is not the adoption of a standpoint with regard to the punishment or non-punishment of such deeds. That question is not being addressed here. That is our problem, and that is why we shall vote against this measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ermelo indicated in his speech that he was of the opinion that clause 1 in its amended form offered no solution to the problem which it dealt with. I shall put forward a few points at the end of my speech by which I shall indicate what problems would arise if clause 1 were maintained in its original form.

Over and above the very important legal aspects and the legal arguments which have been raised so far in discussing this amending Bill which is now before this House, I want to cast another ray of light on this Bill. The point at issue here is actually the most intimate form of human coexistence, that is marriage. That is why I think that we cannot discuss this Bill meaningfully without trying to establish what the fundamental issue of marriage is.

When we know what the origin and nature of marriage are or ought to be, we are then justified in asking whether there can be any question of rape in the true sense of the word of the wife by her husband within the parameters of a legally existing marriage.

To be able to do this, I want to dwell briefly on the origin and nature of marriage. As regards the origin of marriage, I want to make the following points. There are various religions in South Africa and marriage is approached from various cultural angles in this country of ours. Nevertheless most people who follow the Christian religion, or even followers of other religions, will tell one that they do not view marriage in the first place as a mere case—to put it in plain language—of taking a wife.

Most people of faith who consider this matter seriously do not in the first place view marriage as a legal institution; perhaps at the most—according to a later development—as a social institution. Nevertheless most of these people prefer to view marriage as certainly being an institution emanating from God Himself. This has applied since the creation because in Genesis 1:27 it is stated that God created mankind from the beginning as male and female. We all know this but it would, in the learned words of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, be poor exegesis or at least allegorical to say that this merely points to sex. This portion also points to the interhuman relationship.

Civil solemnising and registration of a marriage became customary as a legal institution only very much later. This was long after marriage was viewed primarily as an institution of God by the faithful throughout the world. So much in brief as regards the origin of marriage.

Secondly, in my opinion it is also important to examine the nature of marriage briefly. The creation as a point of departure emphasises marriage as a bond of allegiance. This means that marriage is a life-long relationship between a man and a woman and that they are permanently bound to each other for life and have to share their common vicissitudes. They also bind themselves to each other by means of specific undertakings which they enter into mutually. The marriage as a bond is therefore indissoluble in principle. This does not mean that a marriage cannot be dissolved, but my argument is that a marriage may fundamentally not be dissolved.

When these undertakings and the indissolubility of the marriage bond are endorsed in principle by these arguments, I do not mean by this either that the relationship between a man and a woman in marriage must be characterised by a form of domination of one by the other or by slavish subservience toward each other. That is not the meaning of marriage at all. The marriage bond must be based on an unselfish attitude of reciprocal respect, dedication and service.

This reciprocity and equality causes the demand of marital rights to be changed into something quite different. It changes into the spontaneous, voluntary and willing proffering and exchanging of marital privileges. It is precisely the full reciprocal acceptance of each other’s rights which leads to the balanced use of the privileges which every sound marriage offers.

This attitude toward the marital relationship also applies to sexuality between married people. The sexual aspect of marriage should be an interplay between body and spirit and cannot or dare not be kept alive artificially by selfishness and aggression or by claiming these marital rights.

On the other hand, marital rights and privileges should not be refused or withheld as a means of threat or punishment because, if specific marital rights become privileges and are used in this way as a means of threat or punishment, this gives rise most rapidly to estrangement, aggression and ultimately to violence within the parameters of the marriage—which immediately brings us to the problem contained in this Bill. After all, whether married couples like it or not—there is a difference of opinion on this but once one is married one knows about these things—the day when couples were married they gave each other certain undertakings and that is why they remain bound to each other on this basis until death or until that marriage is declared null and void in a legal manner.

I want to tell the hon member for Houghton that this reciprocity and finality of the undertakings has nothing to do with male chauvinism. It has nothing to do with feminism either. It involves a meaningful, balanced bond of allegiance based on specific undertakings. Both parties also publicly declare and indicate their voluntary consent as regards bodily union or the sexual aspect of their marriage.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to Paul’s very apt words in 1 Corinthians 7:4-5. I should perhaps like to add a last thought to this. Paul says that, when that problem is solved, after they have had time for prayer they are to come together again so that Satan does not perhaps tempt them because of their lack of self-control. When we accept this Biblical standpoint we realise that it is not only the view of Christians but also that people of other religions say this themselves, even if they do not use the same source. In fact, hon members of our joint committee know that the cultural-religious arguments also played an exceptionally important part in the ultimate adoption of this legislation and the consensus which we achieved on it.

The retention of the original clause 1 of this Bill would in my opinion have the following disadvantages, to name only a few, if it were to remain in its original form. I am also saying this in reply to the hon member for Ermelo. Firstly, it could lead to the breaking up of a marriage and the family as an institution and it could even destroy the sanctity and intimate nature of marriage once and for all. Secondly, it could lead to abuse by the woman. Malicious action could give rise to unnecessary legal steps. The hon member for Brakpan referred to doors being opened to sadism, but what about the problem of masochism? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan in his attack again attempted to distort the very serious subject which is occupying us by irrelevant references to political situations—entirely inappropriate references to boot.

I could just as easily use an inappropriate reference as regards the Official Opposition. I could also argue very easily that those hon members were now suddenly playing political games and that the hon member was now, for the sake of the more delicate and feminine part of our population, making a great fuss about a situation in which he thought he could gain a few additional votes. I could just as easily put forward that argument.

In addition to this, I have examples here of Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche’s, who is light years ahead of those hon members in this process of making overtures, of impressing the opposite sex and of carving out a sphere of influence for himself—I almost want to say in the enemy’s camp. To the hon member’s credit, it did look somewhat different. He appealed to the sense of fairness and justice of the female population and, if that is the hon member’s motive, I want to say that we do not differ with one another but we must view this matter with greater realism.

Yesterday and the day before the hon member’s party did not feel so puristic about a similar situation. The hon member, together with all the other hon members of the House, was of the opinion that driving under the influence of alcohol should count as an aggravating factor. He argued that it was what the people wanted; that is why we should not be too puristic here but rather deviate a little from the pure approach which legal academics would have followed. At that time the hon member was ad idem with us in the House.

The same problems which he has identified now applied then too. Nevertheless the hon member is now deviating from that approach whereas we still maintain that we recognise necessity for change because there is a worldwide change as regards this very important question, that is whether a husband should still have immunity within the marital relationship if he rapes his lawful spouse. That is the simple question.

I listened very closely to the Official Opposition and not one was sufficiently articulate on this point to say that a change should be made and that we should reform as the world is reforming. I listened to them carefully and they did not say this. They did not say either that they wanted to be like Soviet Russia where the husband’s immunity within the marital relationship is being abolished. Those hon members were not articulate on this point.

Inarticulate!

The hon member for Houghton is trying to help me to deal with hon members of the Official Opposition but I do not require her assistance.

The fact is therefore that this is a serious matter which does not lend itself to politicking because we are all agreed that we must direct our attention in accordance with the development of social needs in South Africa.

What else does the committee have to say? They say by implication that this may increase the divorce rate because people who did not complain before will do so now. In addition, the stigma of a rapist will be attached to the father because he will be found guilty of rape, not assault. The stigma prevents reconciliation … [Interjections.] … I know this and I shall answer the hon member fully in a moment; he may then put questions to me.

This is what the committee says. Hon members cannot say that the committee is wrong, neither can they say that they are right in their criticism of the committee because it is a point of view. I think he will agree. I thank the hon member for Ermelo.

In other words, we shall have to learn from experience, as I said in the Other Place. When we are therefore faced with a choice of calling it rape or assault with aggravating circumstances, if they occur in conjunction with rape, I repeat that, if we were now to open the door wide to rape within marriage, one should take cognisance of the great diversity of our cultural communities in South Africa. The police would then, as I mentioned in the Other Place, be overwhelmed with charges and imagined charges, etc to a greater degree. Consequently, while it does not flatter our sense of purism and while legal academics and judges will have a ball—one may rest assured that they will have a ball—the joint committee said that we were taking a valorous step in the right direction. We are taking a valorous step in the right direction and in so doing we are sending out a very clear message that a woman’s spirit and body must be respected within a marriage and not be subjected to the wilful violent actions of a man to achieve his purpose. That is the message. It is a civilised message and it is a message in keeping with circumstances in South Africa. It is a message which may be tested by practical needs in the course of time. Should it appear that communities—I am using the plural of the word deliberately—gradually become receptive and understand what this is all about, we could probably re-examine this Bill which will already be on the Statute Book then.

The hon member for Brakpan to a great extent repeated the arguments which the hon member for Bethal raised on the joint committee. I think it would not be unfitting to drop the jurisprudential approach now because the hon member is right. I told the hon member that it would not help us to start thinking in terms of jurisprudence now while yesterday and the day before we actually took what the community wanted into account. How does the community feel in this regard? The hon member for Roodepoort, for example, pointed out specifically in the debate on the other Bill that that provision was aimed at the needs of the community. In other words, that party recognises the approach that in some cases jurisprudence has to bow to the needs of the community—of the public.

The hon member for Houghton argued well. She referred me to the comment which we received from a wide variety of the legal fraternity. One jurist, Dr D’Oliveira, who supported the second alternative which resulted in this Bill, adopted a very well-considered standpoint. The hon member furnished only statistics. I think that it may perhaps be necessary for us to refer to them. Before I get to this, I nevertheless want to say to her and the hon member for Brakpan jointly that strong arguments were put forward for the retention of the existing legal position, namely that a man cannot be prosecuted for the rape of his wife. There are equally strong arguments to support the abolition of the husband’s immunity to prosecution. In other words, we could have continued to maintain the status quo and have done nothing about the matter, but then we would not have kept pace with the sense of justice of the average community in South Africa, considering the large number of witnesses who appeared before the Law Commission and also in the light of memorandums submitted to the joint committee. Everyone actually supported it in principle that a step should be taken. That was the commonest standpoint.

†The hon member for Houghton gave us a rather historic survey of proponents, opponents and exponents of various views. I think the hon member made one mistake when she said it would not apply to people living together but not married. Of course it would not apply because the clause refers to a lawful wife.

It could eventually be argued in an appeal court that a lawful wife might also include a common-law wife. It is possible that in due course this may be the development. I would not rule that out all together.

I do not know whether the hon member accused us or whether she suggested that we are neglecting the position of women and/or the wife in this country. She of all people should know that that is the last accusation that she can level at our address. She knows that because over the past number of years all of us have been engaged in a programme to improve the position of women in general and wives in particular. That cannot be denied. Perhaps we are now approaching the completion of the programme. I do not know if the hon member’s suggestion is fair …

I never said that. What are you arguing about?

Then the hon member should have said it because she usually says it. [Interjections.] That is spoiling my fun!

Even that is not true!

Please give me enough room to make my point.

The hon member Mrs Chait touched a very raw nerve. It is possible to impose a death penalty for rape and naturally that then also would have been a viable sentence in the case of rape within marriage bonds if it could be proved and if we had such a Bill and eventually such an Act. [Interjections.] I do not think in our situation we can even consider such a possibility again considering the great diversity of communities in this country. [Interjections.]

Order! I find it rather difficult to establish which hon member is actually speaking—the hon the Minister or the hon member for Houghton.

Both of us.

It just goes to show that we should also have a Bill protecting us men against verbal rape.

*The hon member for Port Elizabeth North, for the sake of Hansard, gave a very clinical and scientific explanation of the history of the Bill. I thank him for that. The hon member raised one important point and that is that it was preferable for us to act preventively rather than punitively or remedially. I could not agree with him more. I should very much have liked to see the entire debate devoted to how to prevent social abuses by furnishing proper advice at various levels. I think that the problem originates here. The hon member made a valuable contribution.

This brings me to the hon member for Ermelo. It is a fact that a charge-sheet will have to mention sufficient allegations in order to prove a charge of assault and to obtain a verdict on it. This goes without saying and the hon member is right that there have to be sufficient allegations for a verdict of rape because otherwise there cannot be aggravating circumstances. That is true. I cannot argue with the hon member on this. He said, however, that it would not be possible to draw up a charge-sheet.

No, I did not say that.

Does the hon member say that it is possible?

It is possible.

Otherwise I can give the hon member an example of such a charge-sheet which I drew up quickly here, but I shall not make his task easier for him now.

The fact remains that it is not unknown under our law that a substantive offence is created and that the lawgiver then steps in to identify aggravating circumstances. The possibility of this appears specifically from our Criminal Procedure Act. As regards robbery with aggravating circumstances it is possible, for example, to convict somebody of the substantive offence of robbery alone or of robbery with aggravating circumstances. Of course, it depends on the evidence available.

If we now note how the legislator’s mind worked, we are struck by the following interesting fact. In previous Criminal Procedure Acts—those of 1955 and 1977—we find more or less the following. Aggravating circumstances with reference to an offence, whether in terms of common law or a legal provision, in which the offender committed assault or threatened to commit assault were regarded as aggravating with reference to the offender or an accomplice regardless of whether this occurred before or during or after the commission of the offence. The example which I am using here therefore proves that the entire concept of aggravating circumstances must be brought as an additional set of facts to obtain a specific penalty from the person imposing the sentence. This is a well-known aspect of our legal system. Nevertheless the hon member is right in saying that it is normally practically unnecessary under our legal system to do this except when the legislator wishes to convey a specific message, for instance that he strongly disapproves of a specific offence.

After all, it forms part of our law that a court may consider mitigating or aggravating circumstances of sentence providing that there is adequate evidence of this. We so often find that people complain that the person imposing sentence imposes too light a penalty. When we then look up the record of a specific trial, we find for instance that the plaintiff was in too much of a hurry. Perhaps he did not want to stay in court too long and simply depended on other forms of evidence which came up. Nevertheless evidence in aggravation of sentence was not given. We find this in stocktheft cases for example. People do not want to hang about the court and give evidence in aggravation of sentence in connection with stock theft in a specific district so that the person imposing the sentence is able to impose a more severe penalty. Consequently it is very clear in this case that a court would also be able to enter a specific set of facts as aggravating circumstances in a case of assault by a man on his wife within a marriage.

When we take note of decisions, however, it is very clear that this is a controversial point. It is a controversial point. We have a Natal verdict by Justices Van Heerden and Nienaber which is of assistance to us. In this it is stated for instance:

Further in the same verdict, in reference to consent, according to Hunt, we also see the following:

He then provides the reference:

What does this mean? It means that there is serious doubt about whether other contributory factors in the case of assault by a man on his wife can be taken into consideration. Even if we achieve nothing else today except to emphasise that rape is a factor which now has to be taken into account by the courts, we are at least providing legal certainty on this matter. I know that there are jurists who will disagree with me. We always disagree. You, Mr Speaker, are a jurist yourself and you know how often we have disagreed with one another in an amicable fashion. The fact remains, however, that we are providing legal certainty and I have said enough to serve as proof that uncertainty exists on this point in references, verdicts and so on.

May I put a question to the hon the Minister now?

The hon member may put the question now.

I put it to the hon the Minister that the report of the committee proved that certain undesirable factors enter the case in consequence of the fact that rape is created as an independent offence. My question now is: Do the same undesirable factors not also take effect now because rape will still be proved in any case? That is the problem. Does the hon the Minister agree with me that the same undesirable factors which enter the case when rape is created as an independent offence also enter the case when they are brought in by the new clause 1 as a result of the fact that rape is still proved? All these adverse consequences which are tabulated here must surely of necessity follow—or does the hon the Minister disagree?

Mr Speaker, the hon member conceded at the start that this was an opinion which he upheld. It is not something which one can measure with a yardstick to establish precisely what is said there. The same applies to the committee. They expressed an opinion. They said that these could be probable consequences and now they say in this proposal of theirs that the consequences will not be as drastic as in the case of a substantive offence of rape or the withdrawal of immunity. That is what they say. Consequently this is an opinion which they uphold and their standpoint is that this will happen to a lesser degree. They say that it would be less contaminating if a father were found guilty of assault instead of rape. That is what they say. That is an opinion which they express. Time will tell whether their opinion is right or not. This is the opinion which they uphold and the hon member is similarly entitled to his opinion. He says he thinks their opinion is wrong. This is an opinion which he upholds. This is not something which a person can measure. Is the hon member asking for my opinion now? I say that the committee did excellent work.

This brings me to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. Under difficult circumstances and over a long period the committee nevertheless accomplished their task well. They did not satisfy those hon members, but those hon members are seldom if ever satisfied. So this is nothing new. There is nothing new under the sun. The fact remains, however, that under the chairmanship of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North the committee deliberated and consulted widely over a long period. They have come to us with what is practically a unanimous recommendation and they have tabled it. If the other Houses approve this very difficult and relevant subject, then one must give this Bill a chance to get off the ground and see how it may be applied in practice. That is why I say that I shall be the first one to tell Parliament that this Bill must be knocked into shape again. As regards the purist view, by that time the hon member will possibly be less embarrassed to admit that he sides with Russia.

Mr Speaker, may I put another question to the hon the Minister?

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

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, we are trying to help by putting questions! My problem lies in this. The objections which were previously raised here were adequate to remove the initial accomplishment of that offence so that the offence was not placed on the Statute Book as an independent offence. Now the hon the Minister is now bringing exactly the same offence which he rejected previously in by the back door. Should this not also be rejected for the same reasons as the initial one was rejected?

Mr Chairman, the member is drawing an inference once again but he is entitled to draw all the inferences in the world.

It is possibly true that some of these consequences which may eventuate are and will be the same as they would have been if we had abolished the immunity. That is possibly true.

This is not possibly true! This is exactly what it is!

The hon member is now adopting the role of a prophet. He now wants to try to prophesy to us and say that it will work out exactly as he predicts. When the committee mentions mitigation of the situation it means that it will not be so drastic as regards these factors as a person already has a substantive offence of violence under our common law but one is now placing on the Statute Book that rape within marriage will be an aggravating circumstance. This is what the committee say. They are also prophesying. The hon member for Ermelo is also prophesying.

All I want to say is that I do not intend being the arbiter now in respect of these two prophecies but at this stage I prefer the prophecy of the instrument of Parliament, that is those who brought this Bill to us.

Debate concluded.

Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Division demanded.

Declarations of vote:

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has not convinced us that the legislation as presented here will really serve its purpose.

Even his admission that the legislation must now take its course, complaints be investigated and that judges and magistrates will have a ball in their efforts to obtain certainty as regards this legislation are reasons why it is undesirable to pass the Bill as it is worded at present.

The most important point, which was made here by my colleague the hon member for Ermelo, is that the hon the Minister is not achieving the purpose which he desires by accepting this provision. He said that the original clause would lead to an increased divorce rate and to the termination of the marital relationship. He also said that the possibility of reconciliation between spouses would be thwarted by a charge of rape. All these consequences which the hon the Minister thought would follow if the Bill were passed as it was originally worded will follow in any case as regards the Bill which is before the House now. This is not an inference which we are drawing. We say it is a reality because exactly the same elements will have to be proved before the court may impose the same penalty which it may impose in the case of rape.

One then gets to the point in the report which says that there are adequate remedies in our civil law to grant the wife protection against sexual molestation in marriage. These remedies include inter alia obtaining an interdict or an order of divorce. This is tantamount to telling the victim of a murderous attack on his deathbed: “We shall arrange a splendid funeral for you.” That is actually the effect it has.

As regards the hon the Minister’s statements on the subject of assault, our standpoint on this matter is that the Bill as it has now been amended does not solve the hon the Minister’s problems yet regarding alleged uncertainty. If a man threatens a woman by saying that he will rape her if she does not submit and she gets away, no offence has yet been committed in terms of the Bill as it stands here.

Attempted rape will therefore still not be an offence. Consequently the Bill does not achieve its object. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not think there is very much more to be added to what has already been said in regard to our objections to the present Bill. It does take a small, tottering step forward in one respect in that it draws the attention of the judiciary to the fact that if there has been an assault on the woman, and had they not been a married couple, the man could have been found guilty of rape and a suitable penalty imposed. From that point of view there is a small improvement in the status quo but it is our contention, and we base our opinion largely on the excellent evidence produced in the report of the South African Law Commission, Project 45, that a much more definitive change in the law is required than the one which we are presented with here today in this Bill. In other words, we do not believe that the marriage rights entitle a man to sexual intercourse any time he wishes if his wife does not consent. As far as we are concerned it is a very simple matter. It is rape whether it is committed by a husband on his wife or whether it is rape as normally understood in law.

After lots of argument and attempting to get the suggestions of the Law Commission accepted in the joint committee, we did accept finally the slight improvement in clause 1, but nevertheless, that does not in any way derogate from our opposition to the fact that the law has not been materially altered. I personally would have wanted even more than the Law Commission advanced in its views in that I would have liked the definition of rape changed. However that apparently, was outside the terms of reference. [Interjections.] Well, I am sure the hon the Minister is an expert in this regard. [Interjections.] I will not go further on that point but since it was outside the terms of reference we leave it at that and simply record our objection.

Mr Chairman, this measure seeks a more severe punishment in cases where assault by a husband on his wife is accompanied by sexual violation. Because there Would seem to be an increase in this kind of offence in the community, I want to suggest that it is correct, right and acceptable for this measure to be passed by Parliament.

The argument raised by the CP is that being found guilty of assault with aggravating circumstances, as envisaged here, will have precisely the same consequences as being found guilty of the crime of rape. This is patently absurd and we reject it.

The House divided:

AYES—76: Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, P J; Bloomberg, S G; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botma, M C; Brazelle, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Coetsee, H J; Delport, J T; Dilley, L H M; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Geldenhuys, B L; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heyns, J H; Hunter, J E L; Jager, R; Jooste, J A; Jordaan, A L; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kriel, H J; Kruger, T A P; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malherbe, G J; Marais, P G; Maree, J W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Rabie, J; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Snyman, A J J; Steenkamp, P J; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, P J; Thompson, A G; Van Breda, A; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Vilonel, J J; Welgemoed, P J; Wentzel, J J G.

Tellers: Golden, S G A; Kritzinger, W T; Ligthelm, C J; Maree, M D; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Smit, H A.

NOES—25: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Coetzee, H J; De Ville, J R; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Gastrow, P H P; Hartzenberg, F; Jacobs, S C; Lorimer, R J; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Mulder, C P; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D.

Tellers: Le Roux, F J; Snyman, W J.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the purpose of this Machinery and Occupational Safety Amendment Bill is mainly to effect improvements with reference to what we have learnt from practical experience in regard to the implementation of the principal Act. Provision is now being made for a chief executive officer of a body corporate or a Government enterprise to further promote the implementation of the safety management system by means of direct involvement as well as the dedication of top management.

The principal Act entrusts an employer with a variety of obligations which, in the case of a company, are the responsibility of the company itself and not of the individual. The responsibility for a company’s carrying out these duties is often entrusted to a junior employee, which often means that these duties are not carried out to the desired standard, which in turn leads to the inefficient functioning of a company’s safety management system.

The amending Bill entrusts the chief executive officer with this duty in an attempt to ensure that the safety management system functions as effectively as possible.

The amending Bill envisages the exclusion of a load line ship, boat or floating crane as defined in the Merchant Shipping Act as well as certain investigations in terms of the Aviation Act from the scope of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act.

There is a considerable degree of duplication in the areas of jurisdiction of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1951 and the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act of 1983. The problem consists in the fact that safety standards and regulations that are prescribed under the two Acts differ markedly and can seldom be reconciled in practice. In addition South Africa is bound by numerous international conventions with regard to safety at sea and the safety of vessels and crew. It is undesirable for this duplication to continue, and that is why this exclusion is envisaged. The reporting of aircraft accidents in terms of section 17 of the principal Act, which also have to be investigated in terms of the Aviation Act of 1962, is also excluded since this unnecessary duplication serves no purpose.

†So as to enhance the effectiveness of the Advisory Council for Occupational Safety, the number of members is being increased from nine to 12. It is deemed necessary that a second officer of the Department of Manpower be appointed to cater for the distinction between the two main professional branches that comprise occupational safety, namely physical safety and occupational hygiene. Provision is also being made for the inclusion of two experts in occupational safety or the safety of machinery in order to fill a need for additional expertise in these directions.

Practical experience has taught us that the designation of one safety representative for every 50 employees in shops and offices and monthly safety inspections of such workplaces is excessive.

The practice of the Minister of Manpower to grant exemption on condition that one safety representative is designated for every 100 employees in shops and offices and that safety inspections take place once every three months instead of monthly, is being embodied in the principal Act so as to eliminate the need for exemption and for easy reference.

The maximum fine for contraventions of certain provisions of the principal Act is being increased from R2 000 to R10 000, and in the case of injury on duty where an employer caused an act or omission which would have made him guilty of culpable homicide, from R4 000 to R20 000. The increases are necessary because the costs of complying with safety standards at present bear little relationship to the maximum fine. The reason for the increases is to facilitate the more effective enforcement of the principal Act.

Mr Chairman, the Machinery and Occupational Safety Amendment Bill provides for a few essential amendments. Clause 1(a)(1) provides for a chief executive officer, who will be responsible for the overall management and control of the business of that enterprise.

Subsection (4) provides that this Bill will not apply to premises where the Mines and Works Act, 1956, applies or to a factory where explosives are manufactured. Paragraph (c) of this subsection also now provides that any load line ship—whether such ship has a load line exemption certificate or not—as well as any fishing boat, sealing boat, whaling boat or floating crane will henceforth be exempt from the provisions of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act.

The composition of the advisory council is also being changed. It will be enlarged from nine to 12 members, who will be appointed by the Minister, and will consist of a chief inspector, who will be an ex officio member of the council; two officers instead of one, who shall be in the service of the Department of Manpower; two persons nominated by the Minister of National Health and Population Development; one officer serving in the office of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner; two persons to represent the employer; two persons to represent the employees; as well as two persons appointed by the Minister of Manpower by reason of their knowledge of occupational safety.

Clause 9 now provides that shops and offices, defined as workplace in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1983, shall have at least one safety representative for every 100 employees or part thereof. Any other workplace should have at least one safety representative for every 50 employees or part thereof.

Section 10 of the principal Act is also being amended to provide that shops and offices will be visited by an inspector at least every three months. Any other workplace shall be visited once a month. The chief executive officer must ensure that the provisions of this Act are complied with. He can delegate any of his duties to anyone under his control, however. Provision is also being made for the head of department of any Government department to be regarded as the chief executive officer.

Section 17 of the principal Act is being amended so that traffic accidents on public roads and accidents in private households need not be reported to the Department of Manpower, provided that in the case of the latter the householder forthwith reports the incident to the SAP or to a local authority. Provision is now being made for the exclusion of an accident that has to be investigated in terms of section 12 of the Aviation Act, 1962, from this Act.

Furthermore provision is being made for an increase in the fines that can be imposed at present, and clauses 28 and 35 provide that the fines be increased from R2 000 to R10 000; from R4 000 to R20 000; from R1 000 to R5 000; and from R5 to R100.

Only one clause is lacking in this amending Bill. In my opinion it should have provided that when members of a political party fight among themselves and try to brain one another over a position, this should also be regarded as a notifiable accident. The CP supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am rather surprised that the CP is supporting this amending legislation, because among other things in this Bill an advisory council, which in reality is a multiracial council, is being enlarged. [Interjections.] I find it very strange that there will be no co-operation in the regional services councils, yet there is full co-operation when it comes to this advisory council. Nevertheless I am grateful for their support, because I believe that this is a very useful amendment. I want to say more about the advisory council later.

The Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, Act No 6 of 1983, is being amended by the amending Bill before the House in order to define “chief executive officer”; to exclude merchant shipping and certain investigations in terms of the Aviation Act, 1962, from the application of the Act; to expand the constitution of the Advisory Council for Occupational Safety and to provide for the period of office and remuneration of the additional members; to differentiate between shops and offices and other workplaces with respect to the designation of safety representatives and their functions; to charge chief executive officers with certain duties; to delete certain obsolete transitional provisions; to increase the fines which may be imposed under the Act; and to provide for incidental matters.

This side of the House welcomes legislation which ensures the employees’ safety, security and health and takes steps to improve these aspects. Since this Act came into operation in 1984, a great deal of practical experience has been gained in its implementation. The outstanding characteristic of this amending Bill is the confirmation of practices that have come into being.

The Advisory Council for Occupational Safety is being enlarged from nine to 12 members. The Department of Manpower is getting an additional member so that the council will have a representative for each of the subjects that occupational safety consists of, viz physical safety and industrial hygiene. The addition of two persons who have special knowledge in the sphere of the safety or occupational safety of machinery is also being envisaged in this legislation. The appointment of three additional members will increase the effectiveness of the advisory council, which functions on a national level, without resulting in any significant additional expenditure.

Representatives of the Government, both employers and employees, serve on the advisory council, and consequently it is a council in which all the partners who have an interest in occupational safety and machinery are represented.

Section 3 of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act describes the functions of the advisory council as follows:

1. (1) The functions of the advisory council shall be—
   1. (a) to perform the functions assigned to it by this Act;
   2. (b) to give advice to the Minister regarding any matter referred to the advisory council by the Minister;
   3. (c) to make recommendations to the Minister regarding a matter to which this Act relates;
   4. (d) with the approval of the Minister, to gather and process technical and other information;
   5. (e) to perform any such other functions as may be prescribed.

The advisory council also serves as a forum for group discussion, at which matters with regard to new legislation and the amendment of existing legislation are discussed.

Safety legislation can be described as an instrument by which the minimum safety standards are determined and from which a safety programme is developed. It is estimated that approximately 50 000 safety representatives have been appointed countrywide, and more than 18 000 safety committees have been established.

I should like to acknowledge the part played by the National Occupational Safety Association, which is known as Nosa, in the promotion of safety in the country’s industries and factories. The NP regards the right of the South African worker to protect his safety in the workplace as an inalienable right. I should like to support the amendments in this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the presence of the hon member for Maraisburg in the ranks of the NP is proof that anything can happen in the NP, because it was a couple of years ago that that hon member voted against the Government on a motion of no confidence from this side of the House and he remains in that party. That is survival indeed. Anybody can survive in that party. [Interjections.]

I would like to express my appreciation to the department for the comprehensive explanatory memorandum which was provided to members of the Joint Committee on Manpower, because it set out in great detail the reasons for the amendments and it was most helpful. One hopes that more departments will adopt this procedure in order to adequately brief members of joint committees.

I am pleased to take part in this debate on the amending Bill as it was during the course of the debate on the original Bill in 1983 that I made my maiden speech in this House. I therefore have a particular interest in this Bill and I am pleased to mention that we will be supporting the measure.

At the time of the original debate some six years ago I mentioned, because amendments to include farms in the original Bill were being brought about, the case of a young girl who had had both her hands amputated on the previous day. The expert doctors at Johannesburg Hospital had sewn the hands back on again.

I expressed the hope that this girl’s hands would be successfully restored and that she would have the use of them. I hope, some six years later, that has been the case and that the Bill in providing for safety in workplaces has had some contribution in that regard.

The hon the Minister made a detailed analysis of the Bill in his opening remarks but there are three aspects that I want to touch on.

Firstly, we have no difficulty in accepting the merits of excluding merchant shipping and investigations in terms of the Aviation Act from the provisions of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act.

As explained in the memorandum attached to the Bill an overlap exists between the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act of 1983 and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951. It is noted that this causes an almost untenable situation in maritime circles, but I hope that the Department of Transport will in due course introduce a Bill to Parliament specifically to cover the provisions of the health and the safety of the crews on our merchant ships. It is important that while they be excluded from the provisions of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act their welfare, safety and health should not be overlooked.

Accidents in which aircraft are involved must be reported to the aviation authorities of the Department of Transport in terms of the Aviation Act of 1962.

In terms of the original Machinery and Occupational Safety Act they also have to be reported to the Department of Manpower. This turned out to be a duplication as the Department of Manpower had little to do with investigating the causes of accidents, as was shown with the Helderberg disaster. I am pleased the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs is present in the House and I hope that he will give some attention to the remarks I am making regarding the Department of Transport.

I trust that the Department of Transport will ensure that the Aviation Act is amended in due course to provide for the health and the safety of both crew and passengers. At that time it might be worthwhile for the department to investigate the need for separating cargo from passengers in aircraft in case the cargo concerned may affect the safety of those on board the aircraft. I will say no more about that. I think the hon the Deputy Minister is aware of what I am talking about, and I hope that at the time attention will be given to that matter.

The second item I wish to touch on is clause 2. I wish to comment on that clause of the Bill which provides for two persons to be appointed to the advisory council by the hon the Minister by reason of their knowledge of occupational safety or the safety of machinery. This is an excellent provision and is to be welcomed and I trust that these persons with their specialised knowledge will contribute to the increased safety of workers in due course.

Finally, let me say that while fines have been increased substantially to take into account the inflation-eroded nature of our rand I would like to strike a note of concern regarding the inspectors who deal with specialised issues in factories, offices and many other workplaces. One hopes the department will use this opportunity to increase general public awareness of industrial health and safety as well as the debilitating effect of industrial pollution. I am not convinced that sufficient emphasis is placed in this Bill on the need for general public awareness of industrial safety and would hope that due prominence will be given to these matters in due course.

Industrial safety is essential if our workers are to be protected from injury or even death due to inadequate precautions being taken by both management and the worker. I am aware that the department is concerned about this matter and I hope that sufficient inspectors will be appointed to ensure safety and protection of workers. This is an important matter and deserves urgent attention. With those few words we will support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members who took part in this debate.

The hon member for Maraisburg dealt with the Bill in detail. It is clear that he had studied it very well. This also applies to the hon member for Carletonville. I want to thank them that, despite the amendments, they once again emphasised the importance of safety in the workplace. I think this cannot be overemphasised.

†The hon member for Johannesburg North expressed appreciation for the explanatory memorandum and I think that it is a compliment to the department. I thank him for that. It was also evident from the speeches here today that the hon members did in fact understand what they were talking about. The hon member for Johannesburg North referred to the exclusions and the overlapping of health and safety and the general awareness of the public. I think that there is no better way of securing the health of people other than by this particular legislation which is now before the House where one has the safety management system and one gets the employees to take part in it. I think that as far as awareness is concerned one cannot do better than this legislation to get the employees themselves to take part in it. In short I think were are attaining a higher degree of safety more effectively applied and we are doing away with overlapping. I thank hon members for their participation.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the amending of this Bill is chiefly to bring it more into line with prevailing circumstances regarding the way in which Groot Constantia is presently being managed. The Groot Constantia State Estate Control Act, 1975, was transferred to South Africa in 1984 in terms of the new Republic of South Africa Constitution Act and was assigned to the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply (House of Assembly). As a result of this assignment it became necessary to amend the definition of “Minister” to bring it into line with the Act. Owing to the fact that certain State property had been finally identified as being part of the Groot Constantia State Estate, properties were therefore purchased in order to consolidate the Groot Constantia State Estate, and this does not yet appear in the Act, for which reason it is necessary to incorporate this in the Bill so that there will be a clear picture with regard to the extent of the Groot Constantia State Estate. These properties have already been purchased and therefore this is merely a rectification.

Further amendments are mainly to confirm a few aspects in order to improve the functioning of the board of the Groot Constantia State Estate. For example, amendments are being introduced to enlarge the membership of the board so that we can bring in more expertise. This does not mean that the present members do not have sufficient expertise, but it creates the opportunity for obtaining information from other quarters.

Amendments regarding the travelling allowances of board members as well as allowances for the time they spend at Groot Constantia, have been effected to bring these into line with other organisations which function on an equal footing. This has been done to facilitate the board’s activities so that it does not have to run to the Minister with every small trifling thing to get his approval. The board can open its own bank account and there is also a sound auditing system which they can arrange themselves. They can also arrange insurance themselves. In the past these matters always had to be arranged with the knowledge of the Minister. There are also certain outdated aspects which have to be deleted. It is also important for the control board of the Groot Constantia State Estate to have good co-operation as regards the culture-historical aspect. The Bill also makes provision for improving and extending these activities. On the whole I think that this is a meaningful Bill to improve the functioning of and control over the Groot Constantia State Estate.

Mr Chairman, the CP supports the Groot Constantia State Estate Control Amendment Bill. The history of this farm dates back to 13 July 1685, when Commissioner Van Rheede tot Drakenstein gave Governor Simon van der Stel 891 morgen of land. Since then this farm has frequently been the focal point of discussion. Governor Simon van der Stel succeeded in developing this estate into one of the best known farms of his time. Today it is probably the best known farm in the Republic.

Today we are dealing with the question as to what should be done with Groot Constantia and we in the CP are elated that the Government has not adapted the foolish course of privatisation in this case. If the measure under discussion is approved, this estate will fortunately be preserved for future generations, and in such a way that, according to the objectives of the amendment, it ought to be a precious asset. With more than five knowledgeable members who can serve on the board, sufficient expertise should be drawn together here to make the farm economically entirely self-sufficient, and owing to the special place the estate occupies in our cultural history, to let it come into its own and turn it into the ideal farm to serve as a tourist attraction for visitors from far and wide and afford them the unique opportunity to enjoy the wine, the fruit and the beautiful trees of the Cape of Good Hope.

The CP supports the amending Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, in the first place, from this side of the House my heartfelt thanks to the hon member for Witbank for his support, also on behalf of his party, for the legislation under discussion. It does my Boland heart good when Transvalers such as he are worried and pledge their support to what is being done for the good of Groot Constantia.

He is not a Transvaler; he comes from the Kalahari!

The hon member referred to the history of the farm. I do not wish to comment on that. I shall rather leave that to one of my hon colleagues. He is completely correct when he says that it is the best known farm in South Africa. Then he also mentioned something about privatisation. I do not want to elaborate on that but basically I agree with him. This is a national monument. In fact, the hon member referred to Groot Constantia as being a tourist attraction. I should like to come back to that again.

A very important point mentioned by the hon member was when he said that in the restoration process we must endeavour to make Groot Constantia an economical proposition—a farming enterprise which can stand on its own two feet and be financially successful.

The hon member says that Groot Constantia is a tourist attraction. Of course it is not only a tourist attraction; it is also a monument. What I find even more important is that the farm is a living monument. It makes one proud to have the farm here and to know that it is in good hands once again. The wine industry is thrilled, and I wish to thank the State very sincerely, even at this early juncture, for what it is doing in this regard.

Naturally it is not only a source of pleasure and pride to the wine industry that this farm has been restored. I believe it is a source of pleasure and pride to the whole South Africa. After all, it is one of the places in the Republic which is visited by the majority of people. It is one of the places in the Cape Peninsula which is visited by the majority of people. I can almost say that it is just about the number one attraction, not only of our local people, but especially of people from overseas.

Groot Constantia gained fame for South Africa as a result of the exceptional wine which was made there in the past. It was a wine which adorned the tables of kings and emperors and which consoled Napoleon during his days in exile. I think that it was the next-best thing he could enjoy as an exile. This wine was an exceptionally deep, sweet muscadel. It was my privilege to have been able to drink it. We bought a few bottles at an auction in London. A little bit in a small glass, they told me, cost about R25. The colour had faded somewhat and taken on a brownish tinge but the taste was as delicious as always.

Now I want to say that if one looks at the history of this farm, one sees that it has taken an exceptional course. The hon member for Wynberg will refer to it. We should also pay attention to the name of the hon member’s constituency.

This farm has actually declined over a long period. Subdivision occurred, the vineyards declined and the farming was not really up to standard. I also feel that the wine-making process greatly deteriorated. In addition, our wine drinkers’ tastes changes. Drinking habits have certainly changed.

The Government then started buying up land. There were threats about subdivision of land and it was virtually an accomplished fact. This restoration process continued up to the point at which we find it in clause 10 of this Bill. Prior to the buying up of the farm, there was only a small piece of the original farm left after all the selling off that had taken place throughout the years.

A control board was appointed, and its members were experts in their own right. They were experts in the wine industry and on agriculture. They did a good job, but there was a problem. On the one hand the farm was an historico-cultural enterprise, and on the other real agricultural activities were taking place. This placed unbearable pressure on the control board. The men, as experts on agriculture, were responsible for facilities such as restaurants, toilets, parking areas and so forth. At the same time these old socio-historical buildings had to be maintained, restored and renovated. That was already difficult enough! Together with the rebuilding of the farm, we reached the stage at which the farm was crawling with visitors. It is still so today. On the other hand I also want to say that it is a tremendously big advantage, because it makes this monument of ours a completely vital undertaking.

Having now come to a split between the socio-historical and the farming activities as such, as is the latest trend, I believe we are on the right track. As a result of the appointment of a control board consisting of at least four members instead of a maximum of five, one can, as the hon the Deputy Minister said, call in experts.

What about a control board for the NP?

If only the hon member would talk about things he knows something about, I would appreciate it! [Interjections.]

Controls also have to be incorporated. I agree with hon members that the financial statements have to be submitted within six months and that they must be subject to auditing. It is also important for members of this board to be compensated. It does not have to be done but I believe it is the correct thing to do. In my opinion that is how it should be.

This control board can operate independently as regards farming. The hon the Deputy Minister also referred to it. I believe that we can establish the farming enterprise in this manner and develop it into an economic unit. We took over the Laborie Estate in Paarl through the KWV and did the same with it. It took a lot of money.

This brings me to the large sums of money which have already been invested in the project. I immediately want to lodge a plea for more money to be made available for this exceptional project. Money is certainly necessary, because if we really want to build up this farm, which is the display window of the wine industry, as it should be, the pride and joy of the nation, we shall have to look at the financial side.

Allow me to thank the State for what has been done, not only on behalf of the wine industry and the Bolanders, but also on behalf of the people of this country. I especially want to thank Dr Heyns and his co-workers because they are really interested in the work. I also want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister for his interest in this project. [Interjections.] May the needs of Groot Constantia be regarded in a favourable light in the future.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Wellington has talked about the days when wines from the Groot Constantia Estate graced the tables of kings and emperors. Regrettably, those days are no more. Perhaps the dilemma of being possibly one of South Africa’s most famous national monuments and at the same time trying to produce fine wine, is where the estate falls between two stools. It is a very well-run national monument.

I would like to suggest to the hon member for Witbank, who talks about the foolish path of privatisation as far as a farm like this is concerned, to the hon member for Wellington and to the hon the Deputy Minister that one day we go up to a dividing line between that and an adjoining farm and look at the two farms, one on either side. Perhaps then we shall see the benefits of privatisation.

I am not saying that we should privatise the Groot Constantia Estate. I am just saying that there are great benefits in privatisation and if or when one reaches the Emits of cost-effectiveness and it becomes too expensive to run Groot Constantia because it is not paying its way, then one has to consider other possibilities.

This Bill gives a greater degree of autonomy to the Groot Constantia control board in that it provides for the board to sublet buildings on the estate, to arrange its own insurance without the permission of the Minister and to open a bank account. These are things that any autonomous body should be able to do. We have no objection to this. On the basis of the clauses which widen the powers of the board and make up the principle embodied in this Bill, we shall support the Bill.

There are, however, certain provisions that we do not regard as entirely satisfactory. We are not very keen about clause 3 which provides for the payment of board members who are not in the full-time employment of the State. We have no objection to the principle of paying members for services rendered, as long as they are doing a job. So often in the past this sort of provision in other similar bodies has only been part of a system of patronage which has been the Government’s way of getting people to rally around and support it. I would like to have an undertaking from the hon the Deputy Minister that in this instance nobody will be paid unless they have earned that money.

What makes us more suspicious is the provision which allows the size of the board to be increased. I hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will reassure us that nobody will be appointed to the board unless their knowledge and expertise is needed by the board for the efficient running of Groot Constantia.

Another provision in the Bill which is not satisfactory is that the responsibility for administering the Act will now rest with the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply: House of Assembly. In other words, Groot Constantia will now fall under White control. I know that this was brought about in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, and that the principle is already established. It is nevertheless very bad in principle. It is totally wrong that the control of a national asset, which belongs to all the people of South Africa, should be a White own affair. It is part of the heritage of all the people in this country, all of us who live in this country, whatever our colour and whatever our race. Making the control of Groot Constantia an own affair is just another example of how crazy the whole system is.

Rubbish!

It is rubbish. I think that people of colour, whose ancestors and families have been involved in building Groot Constantia over the centuries into what it is today, will be very aggrieved that their contribution should be unrecognised—those people who produced that sweet muscat wine which graced the tables of kings and emperors. It is certainly not a White own affair and should not be considered one, even if it is only for administration purposes. The principle is, however, already embodied in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, and is not up for consideration in this Bill.

A further provision of the Bill which has our support improves the board’s reporting procedure to the Minister and this will accelerate reports on the activities of the board reaching Parliament.

Also, the extent of the farm used to be determined by the State President or by the Minister. A full description of all the lands which make up the estate is now included in the Bill.

We shall not oppose the Bill, despite certain unsatisfactory provisions which we hope will be commented on by the hon the Deputy Minister in his reply.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Bryanston for his contribution but I cannot agree with everything he said.

*It is enjoyable to speak about wine and farms on which wines are cultivated because wine is good and makes one feels good.

Groot Constantia is not just another place. When one drives past, one does not even have to look because one can just feel that it is a unique place. It is unique because this complex has remained intact since the 17th century. As has already been said South Africa, as far as its wines are concerned, was put on the map by the wines of Groot Constantia. Since then Groot Constantia has carried the South African wine industry as far as quality is concerned and has given our wines a great deal of prestige based on achievement.

Therefore it is not surprising that nearly 200 000 people, many of whom were overseas visitors, visited the farm last year. These visitors did not only come to look at the socio-historical heritage, but also to taste the wine. Please note that wine is tasted; it is not drunk or guzzled down. [Interjections.]

Groot Constantia was established in 1692 by Simon van der Stel, and after his death this farm often changed hands until it was purchased by the Cape Government in 1885. It was originally envisaged that Groot Constantia would be used as an experimental farm, but as a result of the increasing demand for these wines, as well as its ties, the farm could not be regarded purely as a business undertaking. The Groot Constantia State Estate Control Act was piloted through Parliament in 1975, and as a result the Groot Constantia Control Board took over the farming activities.

Do the hon members know what the farm looked like in 1975 when it was handed over to the control board? It was neglected, to put it mildly. It was bankrupt. To the hon members who know vineyards, let me say that they were toothache vineyards—the vineyards were as toothless as someone whose teeth had been extracted.

The initial capital of R150 000 was paid by the Government to the Groot Constantia Control Board. This is clear proof that those people were no wine farmers. Try to rehabilitate a broken-down farm with R150 000!

To enable the estate to continue as an economic and viable unit, the control board was forced to take certain steps. It had to extend the surface area of the farm to approximately 176 hectares and therefore had to purchase adjacent land. This was the final blow for the farm and is also the reason for the amendments to sections 1 and 17 of the Act.

The re-establishment and cultivation of the final production potential of 1 200 tons, which is the KWV quota and which is an economic unit according to acceptable standards, resulted in all the land having to be prepared from scratch and 300 000 cuttings having to be planted in order to replace all the old low-yield vineyards. Preparations had to be made for housing for the farm labourers and personnel, a new cellar had to be built, the layout of the farm and cellar facilities had to be adapted and improved to accommodate the 200 000 annual visitors and to make it possible to utilise it to generate revenue.

This farm is open to all. Everyone can visit it. It is a true Boland farm. Everyone is welcome there too. Since the end of the 1983-84 financial year nearly R4 million has been spent. This only includes capital items. Direct expenditure such as that on wages and salaries is not capitalised. As the result of high interest rates and redemption obligations, the debt burden of Groot Constantia, which had its origins in the creation of fixed assets resulted in the control board beginning to experience cash-flow problems. Of necessity the State had to provide aid, and two loans were made to the Groot Constantia Control Board. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Worcester.

I must also say what a pleasure it was to listen to the hon member for Wellington licking his lips in reminiscence of past experiences at this great establishment of Groot Constantia. I would imagine that this House has seldom been treated to such an excellent example of tasteful debate. One could virtually hear him savouring with every word, those pleasant memories of the past.

I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill, but I want to make certain observations. I appreciate that it is necessary to define, as clause 10 does, the portion of land comprising the Groot Constantia Estate.

As we all know, the entire estate is of considerable importance from a historical view and must obviously be retained as such, but the viability of the farming section—in this I support to a certain extent the point made by the hon member for Bryanston—is also a factor of which the board must always be aware. Should the board for any reason find that this is not being achieved, consideration should be given in the interests of the establishment, to the possibility of a form of semi-privatisation of the production component of the enterprise.

One looks forward with great interest to the yield from the new vineyards that have been established since 1982. The results from these plantings will inevitably give an indication as to the manner in which this section of the estate is being operated. Groot Constantia must always stand out as a model for the wine industry in this Province.

I was glad to note too the provision contained in clause 13, whereby the board of Groot Constantia is required to submit a report to the Minister within six months of the end of a financial year. I must admit that I was somewhat shocked to find that the latest report that I could obtain dated as far back as 1986.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to be good enough to indicate to what degree—in other words, by what numbers—he is intending to increase the size of the board. I would furthermore appreciate it if he could give some indication as to what he has in mind regarding remuneration for members of the board.

Finally, I wish to say that I think the provisions in the Bill, to give greater power to the board to handle financial and other affairs, are logical.

It is in this context that I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Mooi River and participate in this tasteful debate, as he put it.

I think we are all aware that this Bill is of a technical nature. The most important clause is probably clause 2, which empowers the Minister to appoint more than five members to the board. I would like to suggest to him that he takes this opportunity to add to the expertise and knowledge of the board. I am sure that it would add to its prestige and credibility if he could persuade one or two of the big names in the estate wine industry to join the board.

In the past there have been limitations in the accounting systems at Groot Constantia, as was mentioned by the hon member for Mooi River. The Minister could well entertain the suggestion to appoint somebody with expertise in agricultural accounting.

Clause 13 attempts to tighten up the speed with which accounting activities are presented to him and I believe that the accounting procedure in the past left something to be desired. Today we have computer systems that are available and which can produce up to date information at the press of a button. The comparison of the efficacy of farming operations can be done through participation in the mail-in record system.

The Roman author Columella, writing on wine farming in the first century, stated that on the income of a wine farmer on wine alone, he found that they should easily realise the 6% which in those days was payable to moneylenders.

He attributed the failure of many wine farmers to the following factors: Their weak judgement in choice of ground, unsatisfactory selection of vines, inadequate cultivation and fertilization and the lack of personal supervision. I think our Boland wine farmers call this “die Hermanns siekte”. [Interjections.]

The decision to preserve Groot Constantia Estate for the nation was based on three reasons. Firstly, to protect the environmental integrity of the area, and few will argue that it is indeed a lovely part of the world; secondly, to keep for posterity the historical heritage that is tied up there; and thirdly, to continue production of Constantia wine, a wine of international renown.

Other speakers have spoken about it being served at the tables of kings and emperors but what to me is more interesting is the number of times that it has been mentioned in literature.

We find Jane Austen in her novel Sense and Sensibility speaking of Constantia wine which not only has a good effect on colicky gout but also has healing powers on a disappointed heart. [Interjections.]

If we look at what the first English who came to the Cape had to say, we hear of a certain Captain Robert Percival. When writing in 1804 he said:

[Interjections.] It is a pity that many of our countrymen do not always appreciate the value that can be found in South African wine. It is therefore my hope that Constantia wine will regain its former fame and glory and require the lustre of the former famous jewel that it once was.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful to the hon members who support this amending Bill. I think that the single general comment I want to make in this regard is that in the past few years Groot Constantia has experienced some interesting moments in this House. As the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central pointed out, we also had some interesting moments in respect of the auditing and financing of Groot Constantia. We got through this, and I think we have now reached the stage where Groot Constantia can function without these worries to keep it away from its actual activities. I am grateful for this.

When are you going to get the vineyards right?

We are trying and we are on the point of doing so. We have reestablished quite a number of them. They are better now than they were when we started with them.

*The point I am trying to make here is that there is a great deal of goodwill in respect of Groot Constantia, and not only in this House but throughout South Africa, and among all population groups. That is why I would also like to mention a few aspects in the comments in respect of the view of those of us who are in control of Groot Constantia and the matter of privatisation, which I think is at issue here.

I am grateful for the hon member for Witbank’s remarks, particularly the sentiments he voiced that we should not privatise Groot Constantia, if I understood him correctly … [Interjections.] … but I see he does not want to listen to this. Our standpoint on privatisation is something to which I shall return later, but I thank him for his support in respect of Groot Constantia.

The hon member for Wellington spoke in his characteristic way …

Is he not the member for Kraaifontein?

No, previous members have already come off second-best in respect of the anomaly regarding that name the hon member mentioned. It would be more relevant to Andries.

The hon member for Wellington is acquainted with Groot Constantia and he is acquainted with the wine industry. We are grateful for the fact that he pointed out that Groot Constantia was a living monument to the wine industry.

A dead loss.

Although it is a dead loss at the moment, that does not mean that it will always be one. We want to turn it into a living monument with a revenue base, and that is why we are effecting certain of these amendments—to make this possible.

We also want to convert it into a money-making component so that it can recover part of its costs. When we talk about a money-making component, in whose hands do we want to place this money-making component of Groot Constantia if we privatise it or deal with it in another way? Must we get hold of the big businessmen in the wine industry, because they have the money to establish the capital to allow it to function economically? What will then happen to Groot Constantia in the light of the words of the hon member for Bryanston:

If we do that, we will be handing over this national monument or monument of South Africa to people who are going to exploit it economically and then it will only be within the reach of the lucky few who have the money and who can buy their way in. That is not our intention at all. [Interjections.]

Yes, but that is what we want to bring back. We want to place Groot Constantia, which is visited on a large scale by a large variety of people, and not only from South Africa but also from abroad and from different population groups, within their reach. I think the hon member for Wellington hinted that we had to improve the conditions.

When I therefore come to the hon member for Bryanston who spoke about privatisation and whereas other hon members were also inclined towards privatisation, I want us to consider the composition of the board for Groot Constantia. At the moment it is controlled by a person who has absolutely nothing to do with the State. In a certain sense we have already privatised it in that the management of Groot Constantia is not answerable to the State for everything they do.

At the moment the board consists of the chairman, Dr Dawid de Villiers, the former head of Sasol. The deputy chairman is Mr Van Niekerk, the production manager of the KWV. Then we have Mr Hendrik van Zyl, an attorney who has links via the Cloetes with the cultural history aspect of Groot Constantia. A very important addition we have made to the composition of the board, is the appointment of Mr Sidney Beck of Paarl, a wine farmer and one of the producers of estate wines, who has brought in a great deal of expertise and has helped us to make a meaningful contribution in respect of the economic decisions which have to be taken. His contributions are increasing because he has the practical knowledge. Then we have Dr Deist of the Viniculture Institute in Stellenbosch, who is also making a very important contribution.

This brings us to five members who basically all …

Who is the managing director?

That is Dr De Villiers. [Interjections.] Oh, the managing director? No, the board controls the officials appointed by them. Civil servants are not appointed by them. The Act also provides that we do not second public servants to Groot Constantia to be paid by the State while they are controlled by someone else.

In other words this board appoints people to carry out certain managerial functions on their behalf, and they control those managerial functions. The purpose is to channel this undertaking in an increasingly economic direction, with greater quality production as the norm, rather than that of a mere commercial undertaking. This is the important aspect. In this regard important decisions have already been taken for the future so that the Groot Constantia State Estate’s wine production will increasingly have the characteristic of those wines which originally put it on the map. We do not want to compete with the estate wines, but we want to bring what was characteristic of the Groot Constantia State Estate back to the table.

The hon members who therefore talk about privatisation and the question of quality wine—I myself and many others have a problem with this—remind me of what the private sector will do with the name of the Groot Constantia State Estate. What will they do if they can put the name Groot Constantia on their label and take over ownership of it? Money, rather than the cultural history, will talk.

We have succeeded meaningfully in separating the cultural history aspect and the farming aspect from one another. We have achieved reconciliation and although they are separate from one another, they cannot be totally separated from one another, because the preservation of cultural history and farming operations take place on the same farm. In this regard we have found a meaningful solution.

†As far as the payment of the members of the board is concerned I do not think that there are any objectives which we have which we do not want to make public or that we want to pay people just to sit there on a board.

*The most important procedure being adopted here is to give people who are not in the employ of the State and who are sacrificing their time, an honorarium or daily allowance as partial compensation for the time they are sacrificing to the control board of the Groot Constantia State Estate. This is one facet.

The daily allowance or honorarium will be determined according to the regulation promulgated in connection with the Treasury, which is known as the system of administration of the service benefits of office-bearers of certain statutory and other institutions at central South African government level. This is not a salary or remuneration in the sense that a man sits there and whether he does anything or not, he receives a large sum of money. It must be emphasised that this is a daily allowance or honorarium, and should not be seen as a salary at all. If the control board of Groot Constantia were to decide to pay an allowance, it would only be paid for the actual days devoted to the activities of the board.

I want to tell hon members that the members of the board do not intend to introduce this in the immediate future. The chairman of the board also considers this as the providing of a service rather than as a job done for compensation. However, if one wants to utilise the expertise of the private sector nowadays, there are circumstances in which one must compensate that person for expenses. I hope that hon members will accept our intentions in this regard.

In respect of the management of Groot Constantia in future I think that its debt burden is now under better control and that we will make progress in this regard in future. I do not want to elaborate on this except to say that the increases in respect of the number of members serving on the board will only take place on the basis of expertise, because there are a few problems.

Hon members who know Groot Constantia, who have walked about there and have seen what it looks like now, will know that it is a tremendous challenge to get it to the stage where it will be able to take its rightful place as a so-called national monument for everyone. There is still a great deal of work to be done, but the foundations have been laid for Groot Constantia to be able to achieve this. This is simply an attempt to develop this further. There is no intention for us to abuse Groot Constantia for other reasons.

In conclusion I therefore come to the point as to why this is own affairs. We did not classify Groot Constantia as an own affair because we want to put it to one side and keep it away from other people. Because our intentions are good as regards Groot Constantia, we want to give Groot Constantia the best expertise at our disposal so that we can develop it and strengthen it. In that respect we therefore want to take Groot Constantia further along this road, and if in future people lay claim to Groot Constantia in respect of certain aspects, we will not oppose this, as long as it is available to everyone in terms of this legislation.

Groot Constantia is unique to South Africa. It is a feature of South Africa, and I think we can turn Groot Constantia into something grand. When one considers that 200 000 to 300 000 visitors come to Groot Constantia every year, and that after Table Mountain it is the biggest tourist attraction, it is, therefore, something we can use to show people what we are like, as well as to influence people, as regards the thousands of visitors who come here, regarding what South Africa has achieved. In that respect I think we can achieve a great deal.

I thank hon members for their support, and I hope that they, like me, will derive a great deal of pleasure from the future of Groot Constantia.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, we are dealing here with the Incorporation of Certain Land in the Republic of South Africa Bill [B 22-89 (GA)]. It is a short Bill consisting of only four clauses. The object of this Bill is to rectify an error which crept in in respect of the determination of the borders of the Republic of Bophuthatswana at independence on 6 December 1977. Section 2 of the farm Logaging, in the district of Molopo, was erroneously included in the land ceded to Bophuthatswana at independence in terms of the Status of Bophuthatswana Act (Act No 89 of 1977).

This is a piece of land of approximately 239 hectares, which therefore erroneously became part of the independent Republic of Bophuthatswana in 1977. After this error was discovered, the Parliament of the Republic of Bophuthatswana passed a law—Act No 25 of 1985—providing that the piece of land concerned ceased to form part of the Republic of Bophuthatswana and again became part of the Republic of South Africa.

However, the constitutional position is that the above-mentioned law passed by Bophuthatswana has no effect in the RSA, and therefore the Parliament of the RSA now has to pass a law in terms of which the authority of South Africa in respect of the relevant piece of land is restored and it again forms part of the RSA. This is a very clear indication of the complete independence of the sovereign Republic of Bophuthatswana.

Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the retroactive inclusion, from 1 December 1986, of this piece of land in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, in the district of Vryburg.

Clause 2 provides that charges and real rights in respect of this piece of land are not affected.

Clause 3 provides that this Bill shall have no effect on treaties, conventions and agreements between South Africa and the Republic of Bophuthatswana.

This legislation is a clear example of the well-regulated constitutional relationship between two sovereign, independent states. The Official Opposition would like to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, my thanks to the hon member for Randfontein who supports this Bill on behalf of his party. [Interjections.]

I am not going to repeat the contents of the Bill, because the hon member for Randfontein explained this very well. It is a fact that the incorrect handling of land issues has, in the past, even led to wars. I think that this Bill gives an example of a land issue being dealt with maturely and properly. This example of inter-state co-operation, to which the hon member for Randfontein referred, can also serve as the basis for co-operation in Southern Africa as a whole.

I want to make a final observation about the reality of independent states. During the discussion of the Bill before the joint committee, which was naturally very brief, I nevertheless gained the impression that some hon members were hesitant to support a purely formal aspect because their support of a formal aspect would, by implication, bind them to an endorsement of independent states as such. I think the time has come in South Africa for the realities of these states to be recognised both at home and abroad. I would go so far as to predict that even if the PFP came to power tomorrow, they would not be able to undo the factual existence of these independent states. I again want to lodge a plea that overseas countries, in particular, should recognise these independent states because this would also help their economic development. We on this side of the House support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is always a great pleasure to oppose legislation introduced by this unfortunate, divided, confused and incompetent Government. However, try as I might, I find it impossible to find anything controversial in this particular legislation so that pleasure is going to be denied me this afternoon.

This is purely a corrective measure involving an area of some 240 hectares which was incorrectly included in Bophuthatswana. We on this side of the House are going to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Berea has just got me all excited. I thought that we would now at least have a debate to conduct, but then he did not take the matter any further. I want to thank the hon members for their support of the Bill.

The hon member for Randfontein sketched the position correctly as set out in the second reading speech, which I did not repeat here, but which I had already delivered in the other Houses. I should like to thank him for this.

I also want to thank the hon member Dr Geldenhuys for his remarks in support of the legislation. It is true that it is only a corrective measure in regard to a small piece of land which was erroneously included within the borders of Bophuthatswana in 1977. This was never the intention. It is almost ironical that when the true owner of the land applied for a bond at a later stage, it first appeared that the land was part of Bophuthatswana and not of the RSA. In order to correct this, the legislation was passed in 1985 in the Bophuthatswana Parliament to rectify the matter from their side. Of necessity it also had to be rectified at some stage by South African legislation. This measure is therefore exclusively a corrective one. This confirms what the hon member Dr Geldenhuys said that it was an essential measure in the case of inter-state relations, because we are dealing with two independent states here. The only way in which this land issue can be corrected is by means of legislation passed by both Bophuthatswana and the RSA.

There is an interesting point I want to mention in case anybody is interested in possibly making a legal study of this subject at some stage. It would be an interesting case-study, because it now appears that from the period starting at 1986, when the land was excluded from the area of jurisdiction of Bophuthatswana, up to today, because the legislation is now being passed by Parliament, there has been a degree of uncertainty with regard to the legal position of this piece of land. If somebody were to make a study of this at a later stage, it could provide us with an interesting clarification of the legal position. I thank the hon members for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, before I move the motion as it stands in my name I must state that today my loyalty is torn between the farmers and the Eastern Province cricket team. [Interjections.] Can we ask that the rain stay away until Tuesday night or do we ask for rain immediately?

Immediately!

That makes me think of a story I heard at lunch today. A father met one of his sons and asked him how he was. The son replied: “Pa, die droogte vreet my op. As dit nie gou reën nie, is ek in my moer.” [Interjections.] Shortly afterwards he met his other son and asked him how he was.

Order! What word did the hon member use?

“Moer”, Sir.

Order! That is unparliamentary and the hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw that word, Sir, and replace it with the word “maai”.

In any case, he also wanted to know how his other son was. His son said: “Pa, my koring staan baie mooi op die land, maar as dit reën is ek ook in my maai.” [Interjections.]

Order! In what sense is the hon member using that word? I want to determine whether it is parliamentary.

In the sense of collecting, Sir. [Interjections.] In the sense of “wat jy saai sal jy maai.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Then he met his neighbour who also wanted to know how his sons were. He told him: “Reent of nie reent nie, is een van hulle in sy maai.”

I now move the subject for discussion as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

The farmers in the Eastern Province are in that position today. It is a disturbing phenomenon in our country that water from flood-stricken areas flows down to the sea, while we in the drought-stricken areas longingly watch the water flowing away in this manner. The costs are high and the damage caused by floods at various places, and by droughts on farms, zoos and in the wild is serious—to put it mildly.

Our engineers should simply be able to bring the water from where there is an abundance of it to where it is so badly needed. We will also have to find ways to stem the floods and dam up the water. Whatever is done should be to the benefit of the whole country in the long term. It has surely been a well-known fact for some considerable time now that floods in Natal and high rainfall over large parts of the country are nothing unusual. Drought, too, is a part of the climatic pattern of our country. What we must therefore find is a solution which lies between these two extremes—the extremes of floods and drought.

†Mr Chairman, let us look at the position as it appertains in the Eastern Cape at present. Let us look in broad outline at specific areas, the detail of which will be supplied by other speakers on this motion. According to reports all the dams in the Van Stadens River area have dried up, and most of the land is barren. Dairy farmers are not producing enough milk and they are in serious financial difficulties. From Paterson in the north to Humansdorp in the south, farmers are battling to survive.

If their economy goes down, the whole region suffers. We already have a shortage of vegetables in the city of Port Elizabeth because of the situation in the Gamtoos Valley. In the Cambria area water for irrigation had to be pumped at considerable cost. The quality of the water left in the Groot River is poor and this has a detrimental effect on the quality of the citrus crops. The situation in the Kruis River area is critical. The region simply cannot show growth with the available water.

Wheat farmers in Paterson face a bleak future as they enter their sixth year of severe drought. A farmer in the Steytlerville district states that after 21 years the present drought has now finally driven him to his knees. The South African Defence Force has to cart water for domestic and stock-drinking purposes to the Humansdorp/ Kareedouw/Suurveld area. Conditions are deteriorating fast in the Elands River area in the Uitenhage district, so much so that as from today, Monday, 13 March, water restrictions have been introduced by the Uitenhage Municipality.

The Grahamstown City Council imposed water restrictions on the town from 14 February. According to the town clerk, riparian supplies have already been cut off. The combined levels of the four supply dams in the Grahamstown area were at 36%. A decision by the Department of Water Affairs to cut the Port Elizabeth allocation from the Paul Sauer Dam by half, has forced the Port Elizabeth City Council to introduce stringent water restrictions as from Monday, 27 February.

Added to this, the council approved increased water tariffs as from 1 April. Water levels at Port Elizabeth’s dams on 7 March were as follows: Paul Sauer had 15,9%; the Churchill water scheme, which is the biggest in Port Elizabeth, had 38,8% and the Charlie Malan had 13,3% of its capacity. All of these readings are down on previous ones. The position is bad as far as the dams serving Port Elizabeth are concerned. It is the first time in 400 years that there is no inflow. A few years ago certain defects in the wall of the Churchill Dam resulted in the dam being able to carry only 60% of its capacity. This means that the dam always has less water than the other dams even when it is full. I hope that this problem—if it has not already been resolved—will be rectified as soon as possible.

This is a very bleak picture indeed, but a grim one especially for the farmers unless relief is brought to them very soon. Indeed, the drought has been described as the worst in the city’s history. After having said all that, certain questions come to the fore. Would it not be wiser to advance the date of 1997 for connecting up to the Orange River water supply? It is argued in some quarters that this is premature as the city is adequately served at the moment. This may be so but the fact remains that dams are virtually empty and we are now experiencing an acute water shortage. If it is a case of emergency then we shall have to adopt an emergency strategy. What about piping water from the nearest available point to where it is needed?

It remains a fact that an enormous amount of Orange River water is available less than 30 km from the city’s outskirts. Through pipes, tunnels, canals and riverbeds it already helps to irrigate along the lower Sundays River from Kirkwood to Barkly Bridge. Why not this instead of utilising the valuable water from the Paul Sauer dam which the hard-pressed Gamtoos Valley farmers need and could use then for their crops? This may be the reason why some farmers have run out of irrigation water.

In some quarters it is said that if an absence of water shortages were guaranteed water would be made very expensive as for most of the time it would be unused and unneeded. This may again be so but all this has to be weighed up in the light of rising costs in material as well as the losses which especially farmers and industrialists are forced to suffer during the present drought. Would it not be cheaper in the long run to tackle our projects now instead of later? Water restrictions are no real solution. It only keeps the day of reckoning away for so much longer. Would it not be better to have access to sufficient reserves to cover the infrequent occurrence of severe drought as was stated by the editor of the Eastern Province Herald of 21 February? I quote:

I cannot but agree with the sentiment expressed as well as with the subtitle which states: “Tap the Orange”. Let us do it now while we can still afford it, is the message that comes through very clearly.

Those in authority must never be too prescriptive about the provision of the facilities demanded by the people. The people will never demand what they do not need—and sometimes need desperately. If the provision of much needed Orange River water is a requirement to relieve the suffering caused by the drought, then that requirement must be met and the water provided. After all, it is a fact that the State supplies but that the people pay. Therefore, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Unemployment figures in the Eastern Cape have increased. Figures released by the Department of Manpower in Port Elizabeth show that 10 009 people registered as unemployed at the end of January against the figure of 9 348 in December and 8 985 in January 1988. According to these figures 1 024 more persons were unemployed in January 1989 than in January 1988. One’s heart bleeds for the lot of these unfortunate people.

If one considers the amount of benefits have been spun off the provision of Orange River water in other areas, one wonders why the project is still delayed in Port Elizabeth and its hinterland. The number of people benefitting from their involvement in an irrigation scheme is to increase very soon from 4 000 to 25 000 once the Orange River project comes on line in that area. This could just as well be Port Elizabeth and its hinterland, if those in authority put their minds to it. Let us get on with the job and bring the much needed all-aspect relief to Port Elizabeth and its environs.

Lastly, it would be interesting to know, firstly, what amount of finances have been allocated to the Port Elizabeth area for the provision and storage of water over the last fifteen years and secondly, where in the Republic or elsewhere the bulk of the budget was spent.

I am sure the hon the Minister will provide us with answers to these and other questions which will be put.

Mr Chairman, in response to what the hon member for Bethelsdorp said in regard to grain, stones, etc, I want to say that it is unfortunately true that man is subject to nature and not nature to man. This differs slightly from what I am going to say now. A man from the Western Cape married a girl from the dry North-Western regions and brought her to see the sea. From a high sand dune she saw the sea for the first time. The man was very eager to impress his young bride and said: “Break, waves, break.” His wife then looked at him and said: “Oh, darling, they even listen to you.” [Interjections.]

I want to congratulate the hon member for Bethelsdorp on the motion he has introduced. I think it is really a positive motion in the interests of South Africa, but of course, also in the interests of a particular community that is being served here. We talk about reform all the time. However, hon members know that reform in South Africa can only really be meaningful if the living conditions of the people one wants to reform are positive and good. Only when the conditions in which those people live offer them some prospects, can one really begin to reform them politically. One must therefore first reform people economically before one can do so politically.

I agree with that, but who obtained political rights first?

Right at the outset I want to tell hon members what the picture is at this stage with regard to the provision of water. At the moment we still have enough water in South Africa, but we know that the distribution of water is not particularly favourable in this country. However, I can reassure hon members today that when we argue with hon members and when they approach the Department of Water Affairs with schemes—in the case of the House of Assembly it is the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply—the specific department considers those schemes in the light of the economic advantage, the ratio between the cost and the advantage. The assurance that I want to give hon members today is that if the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning decides that it is in the national interest of South Africa and that a particular community should continue to live in a particular area, there is another department which is put into action, and we begin to move out of the working sphere of the Department of Water Affairs, as well as out of the sphere of the budget of the Department of Water Affairs. There are then other channels which must be followed and other methods which must be used to keep people in such an area. Hon members know what the alternative would be if we did not do that. The alternative would be that that specific area would become depopulated and those people would then have to move to towns and cities where housing, employment opportunities and infrastructure would have to be created for them. Against that background I want to assure hon members that they would enjoy the full sympathy of the Government if they were to come forward with schemes which were in the interests of South Africa.

I listened intently to what the hon member for Bethelsdorp said, particularly with regard to the provision of water in the Eastern Cape. Water is essential for people and animals and unfortunately we take it for granted. For that reason many people suffer when we have a drought. However, a drought such as the one which we have been experiencing recently, emphasises once again how necessary water is and what misery can result if water is not available. We take it for granted that whenever we open a tap water must and will flow from it.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp chose the wording of his motion very carefully. He is aware of what is happening in his constituency as well as in other parts of the Eastern Cape as a result of the extraordinary drought. I myself have a good idea of what is happening in the Eastern Cape, and as a result of the drought which is being experienced there, I visited the Gamtoos. I conducted a thorough inspection of all those areas last year. I visited that area again recently. I am therefore really abreast of matters and hon members need not try to convince me of the distress in those areas or that something must really be done about it.

However, one cannot always do everything which one would like to do, because the realities dictate what one is able to do. The Government is fully aware of the problem and will try to do the best for the inhabitants of the Eastern Cape. I now just want to refer to a few of the realities.

†South Africa is situated within the high pressure belt of the middle latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere and is therefore subject to a very erratic climate, characterized by long droughts and heavy floods. This state of affairs is reflected by the fact that during the recent flood situation in the Upper Orange and Vaal River catchments, a drought was being experienced in another part of the country. Only a year ago a similar event took place. Prior to the 1988 floods there was a severe drought in almost the whole of South Africa. Natal is a further example. They also experienced a devastating drought and it was followed by several floods in different parts of that province. Our Creator determines all this but He also gives us the wisdom to search for solutions.

With the increased utilisation of our rivers the risk of shortages has unfortunately also increased and can only be countered to a certain extent by larger and more expensive dams. In the case of quite a number of catchments local resources are already fully utilised and have to be augmented from sources outside those catchments. Two examples well known to all hon members of this House are the Orange-Fish and the Fish-Sundays water transfer schemes.

From an engineering point of view it is quite possible to link basins and to transfer water from one catchment to the other. Technically speaking it is also possible to desalinate seawater and to pump it into the Karoo, but the limiting factor is cost. Who is going to pay for this, and can it be afforded, not only by the consumers who will receive the water, but also by the State, bearing in mind all its other responsibilities and the availability if funds?

I wish to give hon members one example of what I am talking about. The fixed cost of a scheme to bring water from the Orange River to the upper reaches of the Groot River for irrigation purposes will be in the order of R6 000 per hectare per annum. To this the cost of distributing the water has to be added, which could be quite high considering the salinity problems in that area. These are the kinds of costs which will have to be borne for a supplementary supply even in good years when water from local sources may be plentiful. Bearing in mind that water alone does not produce a crop it is quite clear that the total picture must be looked at.

Then of course there are the future water demands in the supplier basins that have to be considered. In the long run there will be no water surpluses in South Africa and the State cannot be expected to rob Peter to pay Paul. The aim must always be the equitable allocation of water at a cost affordable by the community.

The Government was not caught napping when the drought in the Eastern Cape started. The planning of water resources is a long and ongoing process. In the original White Paper on the Orange River Development Project, White Paper X-62, mention was made of the Government’s intention to supply the Eastern Cape with water from the Orange River. Since then the implementation of those components of the Orange River Project in the Eastern Cape and the expansion and further development thereof have gone ahead systematically.

I honestly believe that the Department of Water Affairs has done its fair share in providing the people in the Eastern Cape with sufficient water at a reasonable degree of assurance. With the completion of the Orange-Fish Tunnel and the Fish-Sundays Canal in 1978 supplementary water was made available to the stagnating Eastern Cape. The supply of water to 28 000 ha under irrigation was doubled and water is now available at a high degree of assurance. In addition 17 000 ha of new irrigation land was developed which was not only a considerable boost to the economy of the Eastern Cape, but also provided urgently needed job opportunities. More recently the Amatole, Lower Fish and Lower Sundays River Government Water Schemes were commenced and are estimated to cost about R540 million. Apart from providing water for some 14 000 ha additional irrigation, these water supply schemes will also augment the sources available to East London, Grahamstown, Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage. As far as the latter two are concerned it is up to them to build their own schemes to take water from the Government Water Scheme, to purify it and to distribute it to their consumers.

Grahamstown already has such plans on the drawing board, and a working group has been formed consisting of officials of the Department of Water Affairs and the city council of Port Elizabeth to study the implementation of water supply to the Port Elizabeth metropolitan area from the Sundays River canals now under construction.

The current drought has to be seen as a very rare event. For instance the inflow into the Charlie Malan Dam has been only about 10% of the mean annual runoff for four consecutive years. To provide fully for such an event would necessitate very expensive waterworks and these costs would have to be borne by the consumers.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp also mentioned among other things the plight of the rural areas. The Department of Water Affairs is fully aware of the situation there, but it has been stated repeatedly that it is up to those communities to come forward with feasible proposals as the people in the Bushman’s River Valley have already done. It is not in all cases the responsibility of the Department of Water Affairs to undertake the construction of water schemes to supply individual communities with water, nor is it the department’s responsibility to supply water in emergency situations. The Department of Water Affairs will, where possible, be of assistance but cannot take everything unto itself. If there is time later during this debate I will gladly return to the individual communities and areas which have been mentioned and comment on their position.

I must stress though, that proposals for Government water schemes must be feasible and economically viable. The economics of the scheme and the technical feasibility thereof are, however, not the only criteria. There are other factors too which can have a bearing on the outcome. Social factors, security, etc can all play a role in the decision-making process. Of course they are very difficult to quantify but they nevertheless can influence the decision.

I believe that the people everywhere must be more active in their pursuit of goals. If there is a need for water in general they must be willing to pursue the matter actively. However, I must also add that it is my belief that it is not the responsibility of the State to do everything everywhere. [Interjections.] It is just not possible. There are ways and means by which the State can lend assistance, and this willingness has been indicated at various times by myself, the hon the Minister of Water Affairs and our predecessors.

I have made mention of the Department of Water Affairs’ willingness to assist. The Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the Administration: House of Representatives also has a responsibility in this regard. The Department of Agriculture and Water Supply in the Administration: House of Assembly is actively pursuing schemes for irrigation development and stabilisation for White farmers. [Interjections.] The responsible department in the Administration: House of Representatives should do the same. I have personally on numerous occasions called for closer liaison. Please grasp this extended hand of assistance and co-operation. The Haarlem Irrigation Board in the Oudtshoorn area intends constructing a water scheme which will also benefit White farmers, apart from the Coloured farmers within the existing Haarlem irrigation area. This is a combined scheme and I trust more such schemes will follow, but Coloured own affairs schemes must not be neglected.

Droughts cannot be averted but their impact can be reduced and we must work together in achieving that. That does not, however, preclude anyone from implementing a scheme of his own to secure a dependable water supply for the consumer or consumers concerned.

The Department of Water Affairs is a general affairs department and is thus responsible for various matters pertaining to water. It is for instance responsible for assisting local authorities in the provision of water to their consumers by means of subsidies on the cost of their water works. There is a formula which is applied to determine this financial assistance.

*I do not want to go into detail now, but hon members are aware of this now and any local authority is free to submit enquiries in this regard to the Department of Water Affairs. Several of the towns which hon members referred to today, have already received a subsidy on their waterworks, or are in the process of implementing a scheme on which they will receive a subsidy. I had a brief survey done of those local authorities in the Eastern Cape which have recently received financial aid from the Department of Water Affairs for their waterworks. The list is perhaps not comprehensive, but an amount of nearly R50 million has already been spent on waterworks by local authorities in the Eastern Cape and a total amount of just over R11 million was received by them on that amount in the form of subsidies. The actual amounts which have been spent on the provision of water by local authorities, are expected to exceed this, because not everyone applies for a subsidy and some local authorities often do not qualify for a subsidy for various reasons.

Hon members of the House of Assembly often make representations to me with regard to the provision of water in towns in their constituencies. In their representations, the issue is not one of the colour of the person who drinks the water, but of the need of the town and its people. To them I also say that we will help where we can. We always try to ensure that the cheapest scheme is provided for the particular conditions, because we have to see to the interests of all water users.

In my opinion, one must try to avoid linking government works which are erected or going to be erected, directly to specific population groups. If one looks at the matter in that light, it may seem that the Coloured population in South Africa in general is being neglected to a degree. I am referring in particular to the provision of water in town areas. Take, for example, the Karoo town, De Aar, where the Department of Water Affairs undertook to erect a water scheme for the inhabitants. If one analyses the population figures for De Aar, one will see that the other population groups are actually going to be the major water users. However, the initiative was taken by the White population group. [Interjections.] I just want to state the point that schemes are ostensibly undertaken for the benefit of the White population group, but that everyone shares in them. [Interjections.]

Order!

The exploitation of subterranean water sources is often recommended and the utilisation of these sources which cannot be seen, is often opposed. This fear is unfounded because judicious extraction … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I support the motion introduced by my colleague the hon member for Bethelsdorp. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister of Water Affairs and his department on the new company they have established. The Atlantic Ocean would seem to be the biggest shareholder but I would appreciate it if the hon the Deputy Minister could give hon members more information on this.

I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to send a team from his department to Israel to see how a water network is developed. If this department had started building dams, canals and tunnel systems years ago we would have been able to buy jam for five cents a tin today.

The hon the Deputy Minister has just said that apartheid does not play a role. However, I have written down in my notes that I am aware of the reply the hon the Deputy Minister is going to give—I did not know that the hon the Deputy Minister was going to talk before me. It would be about the disturbing of the ecology and the economic recession. I want to raise the matter of apartheid again, because we must discuss this. It is being said that the Orange River Scheme through the Sundays River for the Karoo, which we are advocating, is not viable. It will cost too much. Sir, if we think of the billions of rands which have been spent and are still being spend to promote and maintain apartheid, in my opinion this scheme will really be a cheap project. [Interjections.]

When something has to be done for the Whites, it is always so easy to find and spend the money, but when something has to be done for the non-Whites, there is never money. There is yet again no money for the scheme, because the non-Whites are going to benefit more from this water. There are no employment opportunities in the Karoo. If they bring the water there the non-Whites will benefit and they do not want that. They want us to live poverty-stricken lives and that is why water cannot be brought to the Karoo.

Not very long ago it would have cost R54 million to lay down a pipeline. I have the sketch here. The hon the Deputy Minister and I have already fallen out about this and I am going to read this out to him in a moment. Water would have been brought from Teebus over the Wapadberg to the Upper Sundays River and then diverted so that even Port Elizabeth would benefit from it. However they will not do it, because most of the people who will be effected by this, are non-Whites and not Whites.

When prickly pears were plentiful our people used to pick them and sell them in order to earn a little money to keep going. Just because it was non-Whites, they even chopped out the prickly pears. Our people must perish or whatever. That is what it is like in South Africa.

Today I want to address the hon the Deputy Minister on the Orange River Water Scheme. On Wednesday, 23 April 1986, I talked about the same topic. My appeal for water from this scheme is very serious and urgent for the following reasons. At the moment Graaff-Reinet has a population of between 36 000 and 37 000. This includes Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. By the year 2000 the population will be in the vicinity of 80 000.

Order! Can the hon member repeat the numbers? How many people?

Between 36 000 and 37 000, Sir.

At the moment we get our water for agricultural and domestic consumption from the Vanryneveldspas Dam which is dirty and one-third of which is silted up. We also rely heavily on water from various boreholes. This water is not of a very good quality. As everyone knows borehole water is very uncertain. Today it is running strongly, but tomorrow it has dried up. It can also disturb the ecology there, because if it dries up the roots of plants no longer get water. Our subterranean sources are also limited and exhausted.

The greatest fear of the farmers—and of the municipality which must supply water to the local population—is that if we continue using borehole water, it will dry up in the short terms. The ecology will be destroyed and the entire Eastern Cape will turn into a desert. This is a real possibility.

This is one of the biggest mutton and wool producing areas in the country, and if the ecology is disturbed the grazing for livestock and sheep will disappear. Agriculture has already disappeared. Many of our people work as labourers on surrounding farms and eventually they will have to lock their doors because of this reality and go elsewhere to earn a living.

Another big problem is that we are faced with a very serious and urgent housing shortage in our Coloured and Black areas. There are more than 700 Coloureds on a waiting list who need accommodation. We got the green light from the Department of Local Affairs, Housing and Agriculture some time ago to go ahead with the building of 200 houses for our people. However, the water issue is the big problem. The municipality is sympathetically disposed towards us. I want the building of the 200 houses to go ahead, but their greatest fear is that there will not be enough water for the people of Graaff-Reinet.

What is going to happen with all the additional houses which must also get water? The problem will become worse. This could give rise to serious unrest and frustration which will rest on the shoulders of the management committee and this House. At present Graaff-Reinet uses 7 megalitres of water per day and during the summer the water consumption rises to 7,5 megalitres. This is alarming if it is borne in mind that the water is pumped mainly from boreholes.

It is estimated that the average water consumption in the year 2000 will rise to 8,2 or even 12,25 megalitres in the summer. What is also causing concern and must be borne in mind is the fact that the Black residential area and part of the Coloured residential area have no drainage and water taps for domestic use. The estimated increase in water consumption for the year 2000 will be far higher if the necessary facilities, about which the inhabitants are so unhappy, are provided.

Graaff-Reinet is sitting on a political time-bomb. The Coloured and Black communities are at their wits’ end and have already reached explosion point. A spark can cause the powder-keg to explode at any time. The people have no work. According to a survey there are no employment opportunities in Graaff-Reinet for 85% of the Black pupils who have left school. In 1985 many Coloured children left school in standard 9, because there were no employment opportunities for them. They have to go to places like Uitenhage, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Johannesburg to find work, and there they frequently fall prey to gangs and become degenerate. They are helpless, young children who are given a free rein in an urban environment far from their parental homes and they are not use to this. If there had been enough water to stimulate industries and agriculture things would have been very different. The families would not have been disrupted and destroyed in the process.

The vast majority of the Black and Coloured population of Graaff-Reinet are living below the breadline. The incomes of many of the people are so meagre that their rent is the same as or even more than their income. Some breadwinners earn R60 per month, for example, of which they must pay approximately R58 for rent. If there had been enough water there would have been light industries and matters would have been very different, because the man could then have expected to earn a better salary or wage. Our people are living under dreadful conditions.

Political exploiters and agitators are using this extremely explosive and tragic situation to incite our people against the authorities, local management committees, municipal councils as well as the Government. In these circumstances unrest and violence are breeding and growing.

We find that children frequently go to school with empty stomachs. The cannot study properly. At present our headmasters are setting up feeding schemes during the winter months. Agriculture and the farming industry are going to rack and ruin. Farmers simply cannot keep their heads above water any longer. This is actually ironic, because there is no water.

The hon the Minister of Finance will be aware of the serious financial dilemma in which the wool industry finds itself. Farm-lands are deteriorating because of lengthy droughts. Farmers are selling their farms. In the past there was a lot of fruit and vegetables in Graaff-Reinet. Nowadays it is imported from other towns. The local market closed down years ago.

During the summer months water restrictions are strictly applied. At the moment Graaff-Reinet is a dry, burnt and desert-like region. Graaff-Reinet has been saddled with these extremely pressing problems for 200 years now. If there is a good year there is water the next year. This problem was touched on before, but thus far there has been no reaction to it. Representations were addressed to the former Minister of Water Affairs, Mr Sarel Hayward. I visited him personally. He was fully acquainted with the problems. A request was made for water to be brought over the Wapadberg from the Orange River to Graaff-Reinet.

In 1984 the estimated cost was approximately R54 million. This was also the reason why the scheme was never seriously considered. The costs involved were hopelessly too high. This was always said. It was said that the project would not be economically viable. I want the hon the Deputy Minister to listen attentively now. The country has an unemployment problem which is costing it millions of rands. I want to draw the attention of the hon the Deputy Minister to something.

When they started with the job creation project the amount they voted for the first year was R100 million. Considering all the years that have elapsed since then, I do not know how much it is now. They should have been honest and used some of that money, that first R100 million, to bring the Orange River Water Scheme over the mountain. How many people would they not then have created work for? There would have been hundreds. We would then have had permanent work for our people, because then everything in the rural areas would have been well developed and enlarged.

Funds are constantly being voted to save agriculture from destruction. The wool and sheep industries must be kept alive artificially. The depopulation of the rural areas is increasing. If the money which is spent on this every year is taken into account, the establishment of such a project will be more than worthwhile. If there is water, the people will not run to the cities. There will be work for them.

If we spend money on the water supply scheme, we will achieve our objective. It will not only meet the serious domestic water shortage, but will also create many employment opportunities. The building of the scheme itself will create work; light industries can be attracted; the wool industry and agriculture can revive, and the depopulation of the rural area can be prevented.

Where are 80 000 people going to get work by the year 2000 if Graaff-Reinet’s Black population was already unemployed in 1987 and is still wandering the streets? Because of these serious political, social, economic and agrarian problems, as well as the desperate situation prevailing in Graaff-Reinet, I am appealing to the hon the Deputy Minister to intervene. Serious and urgent attention must be given to the various possibilities to supply water to Graaff-Reinet cheaply and on a permanent basis.

I am appealing for water for Graaff-Reinet. The town council of Graaff-Reinet is at its wits’ end. I have their report here, with which the hon the Deputy Minister is acquainted and in which an insertion by the mayor appears. I am only going to quote two or three lines from it, so that the hon the Deputy Minister can understand what I am talking about:

The mayor says that the cost of the water must not be taken into account because there are people who must live. The hon the Deputy Minister knows what I am talking about. The section I have read out shows how the matter is viewed in Graaff-Reinet. That is why I am appealing to the hon the Deputy Minister to look into this matter. As my colleague the hon member for Bethelsdorp also pointed out, I want to say that the longer we wait the more it is going to cost. Water will have to channelled one day … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I was disappointed when I listened to the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, particularly with regard to the negative vibes we got from him.

I just want to recall a few of the statements he made here today. He said it was not the responsibility of the State to do everything everywhere. In the same breath he said the House of Representatives also had a responsibility in this regard. Is the House of Representatives now being distinguished from the State? Is this House not part of the State machinery? Are we left in a little alcove to discuss Coloured water affairs? We were discussing the drought, but his whole argument amounted to separate drought relief for separate little Coloured entities, which was not the reason why the hon member for Bethelsdorp raised the issue.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp was concerned with drought in general, which affects everybody. It is not compartmentalised into White, Coloured or any other race group. So the hon the Deputy Minister must not try to compartmentalise drought as if it is indeed something which can be split into Coloured, White or Black areas.

I am pleased that the hon member for Bethelsdorp raised the issue here today.

Let us look at the amount of money that has been spent on bringing relief in the various areas since 1962. Pipelines run for 124 km from the Churchill Dam, 107 km from the Charlie Malan Dam to Port Elizabeth, and an average of 39 to 40 km each from the smaller dams in the Sand River, Balk River, Van Stadens and Loerie River. Money was not the determining factor during those days. Now we can bring water from the Orange River and link it to the Sundays River for a mere R80 million. We must not forget that the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam contains 4 484 megalitres and the P K Le Roux Dam 2 912 megalitres. For the information of those hon members who do not know, a megalitre equals one million litres.

There is a considerable amount of water in the hinterland of South Africa which, if brought to the Fish River, will provide work at the Tyefu Irrigation Scheme to 25 000 people. Presently 4 000 people are being employed there. If this scheme can be brought about in the Lower Fish River area, at least 25% of the money that will be spent in the construction thereof will go towards salaries. Those people who are residing near and in the Ciskei will benefit most by this scheme. Job opportunities will be created for the 25 000 people—as mentioned by the hon member for Bethelsdorp. In turn this will mean that more than 1 000 homes will be needed to accommodate the people that will be working there. That is the minimum. In looking at who is going to be employed in building these homes and in the industry, we will be bringing relief to those people when they need it most.

*Why can the scheme not be brought forward from 1991 to the present? Employment opportunities would be created for people, which would bring about relief and an income during this time of drought and difficulty.

†In the long run the whole area will benefit from this particular scheme. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, particularly with regard to the Lower Tyefu irrigation area. At present the approximate crop value is only R800 000 per annum. However, once this irrigation scheme gets under way the return of the field crop alone will amount to R3,4 million. That is only for the field crop. However, this particular part of the world is conducive to citrus farming and the annual turnover for the citrus crop is estimated at R13,6 million. Why must we then wait until 1991?

Why does the Government sound so negative about these projects? If the department starts with these projects now, the area will immediately benefit from it. At the moment people from the Ciskei have to emigrate to Cape Town for work opportunities. If we start with the construction of this scheme now those people do not have to come to Cape Town for work opportunities. Work opportunities will be created right there and the financial spin-off will not only be to the advantage of South Africa, but also to that of the Ciskei. The hon the Deputy Minister stated in his address that it is vitally important that it should be in the interest of South Africa. Having given away the Ciskei, I think it should not only be in the interest of South Africa but also in the interest of the neighbouring states which were created by this Government because that is where we need immediate help.

The hon member for Bethelsdorp has told this House what is happening in his part of the world. That took me back to 1948, when we had to import water from Port Elizabeth to East London with the Athol Crown. Tanks outside each and every school were filled with salt water so that the kids who could not wash at home could do so in those tanks in the afternoons. Hon members may not be aware of it but every time one flushes a toilet 12 litres of water go down the drain. Why then can salt water tanks not be introduced in order to save at least 12 litres of water that is flushed down the drain every time? The water restrictions that have been introduced in Port Elizabeth will not curb the use of toilets or the washing of dishes. Every time one washes dishes at night at least 20 litres of water go down the drain. If one could have salt water tanks throughout the townships, fresh water could be saved and utilised for something else.

We read that the farmers in the drought-stricken areas are receiving benefits to the tune of R1,4 million, which means that each farmer will be receiving R2 000. We read how the veld has gone to the dogs and how the condition of the animals has deteriorated, but what about the human beings living in the area who are directly affected by the drought?

*The farmers are receiving up to R2 000 per month in the form of relief. What about our people who are wretched as a result of poverty and misery? That is now becoming an own affair? No, Sir, the drought hits everyone and it hits everyone equally hard. There is no such thing as own affairs drought. I have never heard of own affairs drought. The drought affects everyone in the same way.

Let the employment opportunities now be created to build these canals. That 380 km canal past Ventersdorp must still be built. Why can it not be done now while there is serious poverty and great distress?

The hon the Deputy Minister spoke about costs, of R540 million, I think he said. But what about the R3 billion which was written off recently with regard to the foreign exchange which involved the SATS? The sum of R3 billion was just merrily written off. It is said that it was just a drop in the ocean. Now there are complaints about R540 million. Do not talk to us about R540 million. That is also a drop in the ocean.

When it comes to money, everyone complains loudly, but why is provision not made for that if it is a so-called own affair? Why was provision not made for drought relief in our Appropriation? Why do only certain components of this country receive drought relief? [Interjections.] Only the White component receives it. Where is our relief? Nothing of that nature is mentioned in the Appropriation. Why then does the hon the Deputy Minister make this an own affair? Drought affects everyone equally.

We want to bring relief here. Relief will come through the creation of employment opportunities. By bringing forward the whole matter, we will create the necessary employment opportunities. This means that at least R4 million per month will be earned in the form of wages, money which people will then be able to use. The people who are already occupying that area, will then be able to make improvements to their houses. The standard of living in general will improve. As the hon member for Bethelsdorp said, 24 000 employment opportunities will be created, instead of the 4 000 which exist at the moment.

We could therefore bring this period of hardship to an end, if the Government would do its bit. However, it seems to me that the hon the Deputy Minister has a completely negative attitude towards the drought question in our part of the world. He says the Government will not be able to do anything about it. He says that everything was planned back in 1962. That was the year in which the White Paper appeared. The White Paper that was published that year, has been out of date for a long time. It is high time we had a new White Paper which is applicable to the present drought conditions in that part of the world. With the co-operation of the Government, we believe that we will be able to solve the problems in that area, but there must be no delay. An abundance of water from the Orange River is available, and it is urgently needed in those parts of the Eastern Cape which do not have water. With the co-operation of the hon the Deputy Minister and of every Government department, I think we can bring about the necessary relief.

The hon the Deputy Minister says he is abreast of the whole matter and we need not try to convince him. I hope that as a result of the debate in this House today he will be slightly more convinced that urgent action is necessary now, and not in September 1991.

With those few words I ask that this matter be brought forward and I support the motion of the hon member for Bethelsdorp.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister and I have something in common: Both of us come from parts of the country where we are presently exporting a mixture of sand and water.

†It is extremely ironic that while we in this Chamber are today debating the drought conditions in the Eastern Cape, we find that large parts of the country have had much rain recently. Here in Cape Town we have had our fair share.

The message comes across very clearly, however, if we remember the headline in this morning’s paper in Port Elizabeth saying: “Desperate farmers leave land in search of income”.

*I believe this gets the message across.

They must first be converted! [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, my party leader, says that they must first be converted. I agree.

We have heard the hon the Deputy Minister stating earlier this afternoon that we should improve conditions to such an extent that we can offer the people certain prospects. It is nevertheless true that our dilemma in this country is the fact that for more than 40 years we have wasted valuable money on maintaining an ideology, as well as building up the infrastructure in the country at all levels.

Otherwise we would not have had the situation last year in which thousands upon thousands of litres of water flowed into the sea because there were not enough dams on the country’s large rivers. Then Port Elizabeth and the surrounding areas would not have been saddled with the same problems, because the necessary precautionary measures would at least have been taken. Nor would we have had a discussion in this House, such as we had earlier this afternoon, in which people said that a scheme cost too much and that we could not implement it at this stage. Nor would the hon the Deputy Minister have told us this afternoon that there were various departments in this country that dealt with water supply and that we should look at our schemes from the point of view of our House. This is basically what this whole paragraph is telling us. I want to put this on the record by quoting where he states that the House of Assembly—

I mean either South Africa is a country of farmers or it is not. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister goes on to say:

Since when is the development of the country’s potential an own affair? We would then be making nonsense of the God-given talent in this country! We should always remember that if the drought were to spread and farming people were to flock to the towns, this would only aggravate our problems with accommodation in the cities. We would then fail in our efforts to stabilise the process of urbanisation. We should also remember that agriculture is the only natural resource for processing in the Eastern Cape. This is why the situation must be stabilised.

†I support the hon member for Bethelsdorp in his suggestion to speed up the scheme for the supply of Orange River water from Kirkwood to Port Elizabeth. The need for this has been highlighted in the last couple of days.

I had the temerity to phone the P E Municipality this morning to establish their feelings about this matter. Hon members may recall how earlier on in this House the hon the Deputy Minister told us that a committee of his department and the City Council of Port Elizabeth were at present studying the implementation of water supply to that city from the Sundays River’s canals. However, I found a spirit of negativism. We heard it from the hon the Minister this afternoon, but earlier today I heard it from the P E Municipality. They said that we should first look at the situation and should not go ahead with simply starting to construct canals or pipelines. We should consider the effect if it were to rain tomorrow. Then our massive infrastructure of construction work would fall into disuse whereby the price of water for that city would be increased.

I believe that is nonsense. People are living there and they have a need. These are things which should have been done a long time ago. We all know that the PE area—like so many other areas in South Africa—is subject to periodic droughts. We should have made provision for this.

*I believe we should decide as quickly as possible what alternative we are going to implement. The connection could be done at Kohringsdrif or Barkly Bridge. Detailed plans must be put on the drawing board. It is a mere 30 kilometres from PE to this point. Furthermore, I am well aware that it will take two to three years to implement this large scheme. However, I can remember that temporary schemes were very frequently implemented in the Transvaal. I believe that this case also demands such action.

†As I said, the heading in this morning’s newspaper read: “Desperate farmers leave land in search for income.”

*I just want to mention a few statistics in this regard.

†All the dams in the Van Stadens River area in the Eastern Cape have dried up and one will find that most of the land is barren. Dairy farmers are not producing enough milk and they are experiencing serious financial difficulties. The area is supplied with some water by the Port Elizabeth Municipality, but because of the recently introduced water restrictions and the weak rainfall in that area, people are obviously facing a further crisis. I believe these dairy farmers are hardest hit and now they have to face the winter months too. They are buying fodder to feed their cattle but the question is how long they can continue with this. In the Paterson area and in the north of the Humansdorp area as well as in the south, the farmers are struggling to survive. Mr John Vale, the assistant engineer of the Port Elizabeth City Council, said the whole region suffers when the economy declines. There is already a shortage of vegetables in the city as a result of the situation in the Gamtoos Valley.

*It would be a sad day if the larder of South Africa began to experience such problems!

Mr Chairman, South Africa can quite rightly boast of the expertise of its people in the field of drought control. When one looks at the motion of the hon member for Bethelsdorp in which he asks for an investigation into, and for the institution of emergency measures, one realises that this expertise is not being employed to the full.

The Orange River project was one of my pet projects for the development of Africa. It was begun in 1962 and today, after so many years, one is saddled with the problem that this project is not being utilised to the maximum extent. It is a pity that we have the expertise to combat droughts and floods, but that there are certain rich areas that are lying barren and to which we are unable to get water.

One must admit that in certain other countries there are many more permanent water sources. I am thinking, for example, of those countries in which snow-capped mountains continually feed the rivers.

The crux of the project, however, is to lead water from the Orange River to the Fish and Sundays Rivers. That is one of the essential problems. This scheme was advocated as early as 1928 by a certain Dr Lewis. He impressed the necessity of this upon the department—the hon the Deputy Minister may probably be able to tell me which department was responsible for water affairs at that time. In 1944 a technical report made its appearance in which the construction of a diversion dam and a tunnel was advocated. This catchment dam and tunnel were built.

It is a pity that we are in this predicament today. I am pleased that the other hon members have discussed agriculture and irrigation in broad outline.

I actually want to concentrate more on how the economy, and particularly industry, is affected by this. I am thinking particularly of the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage-Despatch area, which requires tremendous quantities of water for its continued existence. We must remember that the Orange River stands between prosperity and poverty in South Africa.

The Orange-Fish-Sundays River project was a multi-purpose scheme. Permit me to mention a few reasons as to why it was established there. The irrigation surface area in new areas of the Karoo and the existing schemes had to be enlarged. That was the first aim. Secondly, the water had to be conveyed to the irrigation areas in the Fish and Sundays River Valley. Thirdly, the Orange River, which inflicted a great deal of damage after heavy rains, had to be subdued. Fourthly, the tourist industry at the dams and along the water courses had to be stimulated. We in South Africa also thought for the first time about the generation of hydro-electric power as a result of the Orange River project. The generation of hydro-electricity had one great beneficial result, namely that the railways were able to electrify their railway line to Cape Town. Apart from this it also had to be ensured that the municipalities received enough water, not only for human consumption, but also for the development of industries.

We have recently heard—the hon the Deputy Minister himself has also spoken about this—that the people lower down no longer fear floods as they did previously, because the sluices can be opened and closed, and by so doing we can subdue and control the Orange River.

The canal or tunnel which runs out of the Orange River’s Hendrik Verwoerd dam provides water to the Sundays River Valley by way of a tunnel, 5,35 metres in diameter and 83 km long up to the Teesbosspruit. This is the longest tunnel in South Africa. On the other hand, the shorter Cookhouse tunnel conveys water from the Fish River to the Sundays River Valley. This is an opportunity which we have. Before this scheme was developed, we had the Mentz lake and the Arthur lake in that area, and they were practically silted up. The farmers then had to cut their coats according to their cloth insofar as these water shortages were concerned. Today, however, it is unnecessary for a water shortage still to exist. [Interjections.] This multi-purpose scheme must be used to the full and should not only be utilised for agricultural irrigation, but also for the generation of power. Today we realise that the industries are dependent on this power.

The power that is generated by the water in the Verwoerd Dam is distributed through the Eskom network, and towns in the Karoo and in the Eastern Cape ought therefore to obtain sufficient power from this source. Smaller power stations are also being built alongside the canals and these will provide for the lighting of small towns in the area and for the pumping of the water. There are many aspects relating to South Africa’s expertise and there are a great number of ways in which this water can be utilised.

We as politicians are interested in the economy of the country and whenever it is being slowed down or hampered, we ought to support a motion like that of the hon member for Bethelsdorp. Such a motion will, in turn, result in industries developing in the cities.

Many farmers in the Sundays River Valley have already expanded water schemes by building farm dams themselves. Particularly the growers of soft and citrus fruit in the Kirkwood area have pushed up their production. Unfortunately there is not enough water to serve all these areas. The rainfall figure in the Eastern Cape is better than that in the Western Cape. However, it needs to be supplemented, and we can only do this by making a greater success of the Orange River project.

I now wish to come to the industries. Practically every factory requires tremendous quantities of water daily. The blast-furnaces in which the temperature rises to as high as 1 700° C must continuously be cooled with water. A mercury oven requires large quantities of water. We require large quantities of water particularly in the Eastern Cape with its textile mills at which textiles must be washed, dyed and bleached. Manufacturers of chemicals use water as a raw material and that is why it is so urgently essential to provide these areas with water.

Hon members know what has brought me onto the subject of the shortage of water in the Eastern Cape. It is the plea that has been made time and again in this House, almost every year, by the hon member for Fish River. He has brought home to me the urgency of the water shortage in the Eastern Cape and that is why I am one of those people who are appealing that water should be placed at the disposal not only of the irrigation farmers, but also of the industrialists in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage-Despatch area.

A great deal is being said about the recycling of water. The recycling of water is, however, a very difficult and expensive process. It is better if one can continually supplement one’s water supply, because the recycling of water is not worthwhile in many instances.

The extension of the provision of water for industrial activities in the Eastern Cape is imperative. We have heard the hon member for Fish River speak about the depopulation of his beloved town—the gem of the Karoo. I know what role our people played in the development of Graaff-Reinet. I am now referring to the Coloured people. We in this House have already risen above the level of ethnic groups. We no longer talk about ethnic groups in this House. We now talk about people. My people in the Eastern Cape have played a fine, honourable role in keeping the economy of the Eastern Cape going. That is why it would be a bad day if a lovely town such as Graaff-Reinet were to become depopulated due to the shortage of water.

My appeal here today is that the Government will seriously consider employing in that area the expertise which it exercises with regard to water conservation and the control of drought conditions. Other countries are looking to us for help in these areas and we cannot help ourselves! This is a pity, and that is why I want to appeal today that we should not look only to the foreign water.

We have already seen that we in South Africa have made a start in encouraging the linking of water and energy sources in this part of the world. Not only water, but particularly electricity from the Cahora Bassa Scheme is already reaching the Rand.

Another project which gives cause for a great deal of hope, is the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme. We are already having to turn to other countries to supplement our water sources. My appeal is that we should place our political relationship with our neighbouring countries onto such a footing that we can help one another; that we can help Mozambique and it will give us some of its surplus power, and that we can help Lesotho and it will give us the water from the Highlands Scheme.

Whether we obtain water and electricity from neighbouring countries or whether we build smaller dams and install pipelines, we shall have to make a concerted effort to lay on enough water for the Sunday’s River and Fish River Valleys.

Mr Chairman, I have with me another long speech which I wanted to make towards the end of the debate and which deals with a number of the points made with reference to certain areas by the hon member for Bethelsdorp in particular. It looks as though we shall have to start debating in more general terms, however.

Without derogating or detracting in any way the positive points which hon members raised with reference to the provision of water in respect of certain towns and regions, I want to say at the outset that we undertake to consider what exactly was said here, and we shall supply our view on those specific matters and the prospects of the provision of water in those areas in writing.

A few political remarks were made, remarks which one cannot simply ignore. We are not here today to discuss the merit of a particular political system. If, however, hon members want us to debate that, we can do so. [Interjections.] Let us take a look at the factual situation, without coming to blows. An hon member remarked that there was no White water, Coloured water or Black water.

Surely that is true!

It is true. We must see what the true facts are, however. There is no Coloured, White or Black water, nor are there Coloured or White bananas or oranges. The point is that there are different population groups in a parliamentary and political system. Hon members must not blame me for that. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I want to tell hon members that they came into this system of their own free will. No one put them here. It is not my fault that they are part of this system. [Interjections.] The hon members here represent a certain population group. Why did they come to Parliament, and why are they sitting in this House?

In the first place hon members came to this House on behalf of South Africa, and secondly in order to negotiate certain things for their people. [Interjections.] Do hon members differ with me on that point? [Interjections.] Basically hon members came here to negotiate certain benefits for their people. That is why I thanked the hon member when he requested that water be supplied for a certain community. That is what the hon member requested, after all. We are simply reacting to that. [Interjections.]

Once again I say that hon members came here to negotiate certain things. [Interjections.] I want to request hon members to make use of the say they have in the system of Government. Hon members must use the say they have with regard to water supply and all the resources in South Africa in order to negotiate for their people. If hon members do not do that here and merely want to come and play political games, they are not going to achieve anything for their people in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I expected a better speech.

I cannot make the speech the hon member expects, because then he will get any positive reaction from me.

I think the hon member for Border asked whether the Department of Water Affairs was a Government department. That is correct; it is part of the Government. It is part of the Government, but the points of departure that apply to the Department of Water Affairs in respect of the Whites also apply in respect of other population groups in this country. In the first place, the Department of Water Affairs is basically not responsible for the water supply to towns and cities. That is not the function of the Department of Water Affairs. [Interjections.] The function of the Department of Water Affairs is to act as an umbrella body with regard to water. If hon members want water for the different population groups for a specific purpose, however, there is a Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, just as the House of Assembly has a Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to reply to a question?

I shall reply to a question at the end of my speech, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot force the hon the Deputy Minister to reply to a question. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, let us take another look at the functions of the Department of Water Affairs. The Department of Water Affairs is a general department.

It only supplies White water.

If hon members want to build certain schemes, they have an own department, with the hon the Minister of the Budget, Auxiliary Services and Agriculture at its head. Hon members can therefore make use of their own department to negotiate for schemes. [Interjections.] We told hon members that the Department of Water Affairs was there only to advise certain organisations which want to build such water schemes. We give advice regarding technical matters, except in cases in which the conditions have developed in such a way that those local authorities and communities are not capable of building a scheme. Then we do what we are doing with the South-Namaqualand scheme at present. There will not be White or Black water in the pipes; there will simply be clear, glistening water in those pipes. [Interjections.] We are also going to build a scheme in the Karoo for all population groups, just like the scheme in De Aar and the South-Namaqualand scheme. That is the function of the Department of Water Affairs, and if hon members want specific schemes in specific areas, they must make use of their own department. If an irrigation scheme has to be built, an irrigation board has to be established, and if hon members do not know how an irrigation board works, we are prepared to inform hon members concerning the composition of such a board, how it can obtain loans and how it is subsidised. We are prepared to do that. [Interjections.]

Right at the beginning I told hon members that they could really rely on this Government if there were communities living in a certain area who had to vacate the area because there was no water or because they could not possibly pay those tariffs.

†In this regard the following. In announcing the Cabinet decision in 1986 Mr Greyling Wentzel, then the hon the Minister of Water Affairs, pointed out that the conditions in terms of which applications for this assistance could be made determined that extraordinary aid would only be granted in cases where the water tariff or the increased water tariff was higher than that which the people of the region in question could afford, provided the area met the requirements for a water deficient area.

This is still the case today. A basic requirement for the granting of extraordinary aid is that the socio-economic and constitutional considerations be evaluated and that no aid be given should the stabilisation and/or development of the community in question not be in the national interest. Local authorities desiring extraordinary aid should first apply for an ordinary subsidy in respect of the waterworks they propose to construct. After the Department of Water Affairs has calculated the amount of the ordinary subsidy and what the cost of the enterprise would be to consumers, the department will indicate to the local authority concerned whether or not the said authority qualifies for extraordinary Government aid. Application can then be made to the Department of Water Affairs.

*Consequently the Government has already proved physically that if there are communities that cannot obtain loans in the normal way and cannot manage on the normal subsidy, they can develop a scheme for these water deficient areas such as the ones we are already developing in certain areas.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question once he has concluded his speech?

Order! Yes, if the hon the Deputy Minister indicates after his speech that he will reply to a question. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Let us take a look at agriculture and water supply. I shall say something about Port Elizabeth and the Orange River in a moment.

At the moment, when a group of farmers negotiate to develop a specific agricultural irrigation scheme, that scheme is examined by consulting engineers, the cost benefit ratio and the viability of that scheme are determined, and according to these findings a decision is taken as to whether a loan will be given to such an irrigation board which wants to develop a scheme, or whether they will receive a subsidy.

I want to tell hon members, however—I think I have said this in this House before—that from the point of view of agricultural production, it is not even necessary for us to place one further inch of land in South Africa under irrigation at this stage. Hon members must listen carefully to what I am saying. That is the case from an agricultural production point of view.

Let us look at the products we produce under these circumstances. At the moment we have wine running out of our ears. There are 400 000 hectolitres of wine that are being stored in our co-operatives. Hon members know what the position is with regard to mealies and corn. I can continue in this way.

That is why I say that from the point of view of agricultural production, the Government cannot even afford to develop additional new irrigation areas at the moment. [Interjections.] That is why the Government is not involved in a new State scheme at present. At the moment we are leaving this kind of development to private individuals. We sell water from the Orange River and elsewhere to them. We leave it to the initiative of the irrigation boards to carry on by means of subsidies. The only large scheme which we are really considering building at the moment, is the one at Neus-Augrabies. Specific provision has also been made for a group of Coloured farmers there. At Neus-Augrabies we are going to build a State scheme of which a large section will be allocated to Coloureds. [Interjections.] No, we are not talking about Coloureds now. Hon members asked me about this, however. Are hon members not part of the Government? Is provision not made for them? [Interjections.]

Hon members say provision is not made for them. Let us just take a brief look at the recent floods. What do hon members think happened to Coloured farmers who were farming along the Orange River at the time of the flood? [Interjections.] Do hon members want to tell me that any distinction was drawn between the damage suffered by the Coloured farmers and that suffered by the White farmers along the Orange River? [Interjections.] The Department of Water Affairs simply knuckled down, as they did again recently when a flood was threatening, and strengthened temporary dams in order to protect everyone, without fear or favour, in that area. That is why the Department of Water Affairs prepares the emergency dams, in order to protect every population group in that area. [Interjections.] Subsidies were granted to the Coloured farmers along the Orange River. They received the same financial support from the Government as was received by any White farmer in that area, irrespective of colour. Therefore it is not true if hon members tell me that any distinction is drawn between the various population groups with regard to droughts and floods. It is simply not true. [Interjections.]

Let us concentrate on the two most prominent points made by hon members, viz the supply of water to the Eastern Cape and the Port Elizabeth area. We can come to blows, but what was proposed by the hon member for Bethelsdorp today and was supported by hon members is the positive aspect of this debate. Hon members really have something when they say that that area must be stabilised. In telling hon members that, viewed from the point of view of production, it is not essential for us to develop new irrigation areas, I am not saying that development must come to a standstill. My personal opinion is that we must stabilise the existing areas in South Africa. In other words, the Eastern Cape is being stabilised with water that is brought from the Orange River to the Eastern Cape. It is stabilised, and when, in the process of stabilisation, one can establish new development, as is happening, one can proceed with this development.

What is the position with regard to the provision of water to Port Elizabeth, however? Hon members must remember that we cannot utilise future waterworks and Government expenditure in order to provide for the combating of extraordinary floods and droughts. We cannot build structures to ward off floods which manifest themselves once in 100 or 200 years. Nor can we build dams to survive and overcome extraordinary droughts. Port Elizabeth has a whole number of sources of water supply, however, and at present there is still sufficient water supply for Port Elizabeth in normal circumstances. Consequently it was thought that Port Elizabeth would link up with the water supply from the Eastern Cape only after a few years. It now appears, however, that the water resources and the existing storage of water will not be sufficient for Port Elizabeth and the farmers even in normal conditions until we reach our target date for laying on water from the Orange River.

What is the factual position? Let us take the Paul Sauer Dam as an example. The farmers of the Gamtoos have a specific quota and Port Elizabeth has a specific quota. In other words, the water that Port Elizabeth gets from the Paul Sauer Dam is “cheap” water. The water that reaches Port Elizabeth from the Orange River will be expensive water. One cannot simply tell Port Elizabeth’s municipality or their city council: “You must leave your water in the Paul Sauer Dam for the farmers. We shall lay a pipe so that you can buy the water from the Orange River.” It is not that simple or that easy to go and tell people that they must buy more expensive water. After all, where in South Africa have hon members ever seen a popular city council? [Interjections.] Have hon members ever seen one?

Boksburg!

Yes, very well, I accept that. [Interjections.]

In other words, if Port Elizabeth withdraws that water from the Orange River, they know they are withdrawing expensive water, and if they do that, it must be devolved to the taxpayers, the consumers of that water. That is why the city council is trying to carry on with its existing sources as far as possible, just as any city council would, before it has to pay that price for water.

At present a task group is investigating the water supply to Port Elizabeth and that area. They will make certain submissions and will probably come forward with certain proposals. Without committing ourselves or making any promises today, we envisage that the water supply to Port Elizabeth and that area may take place at an earlier stage than is indicated by the target date.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the provision of water to cities and towns, everyone in all the cases we have dealt with—Graafwater, De Aar, Graaff-Reinet etc—is trying to get water from the Orange River. They particularly want water from the river. There is still a lot of water in the Orange River. At present approximately one third of the water stored in the Orange River is used. It is clear, therefore, that there is a lot of water. That water has to be conveyed to these places at great expense, however, and the people who use the water have to pay for this.

The department’s point of departure is to try to help these people to develop their sub-surface water sources as far as possible first. The Department of Water Affairs drills test boreholes, and even takes over the schemes—that is what we are going to do in De Aar—and develops them. Later we may give these schemes back to the local authorities. We shall only continue to supply water from these rivers when these sources are no longer sufficient. Once again I tell hon members that it is our responsibility to keep these people in these specific areas.

With reference to irrigation, there is still enough water in the Orange River for approximately 75 000 ha of irrigation land. That is an estimate. It may be 65 000 ha or it may be 80 000 ha. People throughout South Africa are negotiating for the Orange River’s water. People throughout South Africa want to draw water from this source. We have already identified 120 000 ha of fertile land with a high potential within reach of the Orange River, which can be cultivated using that water. It is a question of priorities, therefore.

Hon members say they are part of the Government and that is quite correct. Consequently they must help us to decide what our greatest priority is and where that water can be utilised in the best interests of our communities and of South Africa. One cannot simply find water by holding out one’s hand.

The plans with regard to the Orange River’s water differ widely from those that were announced for the original Orange River scheme. There are a number of schemes that were rejected long ago and are no longer going to be built. Plans for the Carnarvon Flats and all those salinated brackish places have been rejected and already alternative places, where this water can be utilised much more effectively, have been found.

The water of the Orange River will be taken as far as possible to supply communities with water if it is within the capacity of those communities. If it is in the national interest, and those communities cannot afford the water, the Government will extend its hand to those communities as it does in the case of the water deficient area schemes.

With regard to agricultural development, we consider the withdrawal of water from the Orange River from a different perspective. I can elaborate on the particular points that are being made here for some time, but I want to conclude by expressing my sincere thanks to hon members. Let us talk to one another. Why should we just talk among ourselves? Let us talk to one another, because after all, that is why we are in Parliament. I do not take offence at anything hon members say or shout out at me. Hon members came here on behalf of their constituencies in order to negotiate things for certain people. If these things do not happen quickly enough … I am cursed by White farmers too. [Interjections.] I am cursed by White farmers too, and therefore I do not find it strange. [Interjections.] Hon members can put the word “curse” in quotation marks. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister said hon members had cursed him. I shall not permit our hon members to curse him.

By “curse” I actually meant scold or revile or whatever, Sir. I think we understand one another.

If the hon members want to negotiate things for their people and these things do not take place quickly enough, I understand how frustrated they feel. I want to tell them, however, that they are part of the Government and its responsibility and they confirmed that today. [Interjections.] We cannot get everything we want all at once. There are physical and financial restrictions in South Africa today. When the hon members go and listen to the Budget speech on Wednesday, they will remember what I told them today. We shall have to be very careful and frugal in using the Government’s finances. Once again I want to thank hon members for their participation.

Mr Chairman, my question was actually relevant while the hon the Deputy Minister was speaking. I should still like to know, however, whether the hon the Deputy Minister is sure that the House of Delegates has a Department of Water Supply.

Mr Chairman, what is the Department of Local Government and Housing called in this House? [Interjections.] Is it not the agricultural department of this House?

Order! The hon member for Border said, “No, God”. [Interjections.] He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, surely I cannot come and explain to this House how its departments of housing or agriculture work.

Mr Chairman, I put the question because the hon the Deputy Minister referred specifically to “the Department of Water Supply in this House” which is supposed to take care of our people’s interests. I merely want the hon the Deputy Minister to get his facts straight.

Mr Chairman, this House has an agricultural department which takes care of everyone’s interests in general. [Interjections.] In our House it is the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. This House has a different name for that department, and if it sounds better to them, they must change the name. The department’s work will not change, however. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the subject for discussion clearly mentions the Eastern Cape, but this hon Deputy Minister refers us to our own Minister there every time. I want to know what the Deputy Minister is doing here today if that is our own affair. Is he taking over our department? If it is not a general affair …

Order! The hon member has made his point.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to explain once again how own and general affairs work. I am here on behalf of a general affairs department today, and the subject for discussion concerns what is being done for the specific communities of this House in respect of water supply in the Eastern Cape.

No!

That is what we are talking about now. In that case, what was it about?

About the Eastern Cape.

Yes, water for the Eastern Cape, but surely I said what we were going to do in the Eastern Cape and specifically in Port Elizabeth. I said that since so many points had been raised here with regard to specific towns, we would undertake to reply in writing to each one. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister stated that we must consider purification of water. That is correct. We asked for the water to be brought there and we shall then purify it. At present we have nothing to purify in Port Elizabeth. I repeat: No matter what the State supplies the people will still have to pay in the long run.

The people do not have time to look after State affairs because they are too occupied in trying to eke out a living in the bad economic state prevalent in the Eastern Cape.

*My motion is not racially linked. [Interjections.]

†I should like to read out the motion once again in which I call for an “investigation and introduction of emergency measures to provide water to the Eastern Cape in view of the continuing drought in this area.”

*I am asking for water for everyone in the drought-stricken Eastern Cape. [Interjections.] I am sorry the hon the Deputy Minister views the matter in that light. The motion does not relate to Whites or to Blacks in the Eastern Province who are having a hard time, but applies rather to the entire area. The motion deals with the entire Eastern Province, including the people of Port Elizabeth and the surrounding area.

†However, it appears as though one has to be White to catch the ear of those in authority. The hon member for Oudtshoorn, Mr Badenhorst, had no problems when he presented his case to the hon the Minister. There was no quibbling in regard to the costs involved. A decision was made immediately that a new dam would be built. [Interjections.] Ultimately the water will be used by everybody. What we are asking for is not sectarian; in the long term it will be in the interest of the country as a whole.

I hope the hon the Minister will seriously consider this motion. I also hope that he will investigate the matter again and introduce emergency measures to provide water to the Eastern Cape.

Mr Chairman, allow me to thank the hon member for Border for his positive contribution and clinical analysis of the economic situation in the Eastern Cape. I should also like to thank the hon member for Diamant for exposing the curse of sacrificing good sense on the altar of ideology, and the hon member for Grassy Park for hammering the procrastination involved in the building of the Orange River irrigation scheme and the spin-offs which could be derived thereof. I should like to thank him for his historically and scholarly dissertation of the situation and for informing this House that farmers in the Eastern Province are already doing their utmost to provide water.

We are asking the hon the Minister to look into the matter again because the welfare of the region is worth more than money or ideologies.

*A friend sent me a note in which he wrote: “Ons het nou met die regering gesels. Hulle wil nie help nie. Ons sal nou vir ons God vra vir genade en reent.” To this I respond: Amen, brother. The hon the Deputy Minister did at least say that the linking-up date will be brought forward. At least there is still hope.

Debate concluded.

Order! I wish to inform hon members that the hon member for Lenasia Central, whilst assisting victims at the scene of an accident on Saturday evening, was run over by a passing motorist. The hon member suffered some injuries, and I visited him yesterday afternoon in the clinic where he is being treated and conveyed to him the best wishes of hon members of this House.

Mr Chairman, I refer to Item 1.1—“Staff expenses” of the Schedule. I feel that the amount of R2 150 308 000 in staff expenses is excessive in proportion to a total budget of R6 890 740 000. Almost a third of the budget is allocated to staff expenses, including salaries, wages and fringe benefits.

Looking at some of the fringe benefits, we find that in 1988-89, R75 500 000 went on overtime, R89 900 000 on the service bonus, R20 000 000 on leave gratuities, approximately R97 000 000 on housing subsidies and so on. There is even an amount of R210 000 for a responsible-duty allowance, R285 000 for a motor-driving allowance, R652 000 for a stand-by allowances, and so forth.

If one looks at the medical benefits, contributions to medical schemes amounted to R77 020 000. For medical examinations and expenses arising out of injury on duty an amount of R1462 000 has been budgeted.

That is a lot of money and benefits given to a staff where the total budget is R6 billion. No business operates on this principle. A business will allot a reasonable sum of money for salaries and wages and expect a reasonable return on their investment by ensuring that production is the criteria.

I wish that the hon the Minister would look into this aspect, especially now that posts and telecommunications is embarking on forming a company and is also committed to privatisation. I believe that they will operate on sound business lines.

In view of the fact that the Post Office pays vast sums of money by way of salaries and wages …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We are discussing the Schedules of the Post Office and I do not think that this is the time for an hon member to deliver a speech. The hon member will have an opportunity for that at a later stage. I think we should confine ourselves to the Schedule here. [Interjections.]

Order! I would like to inform the hon member for Moorcross that the hon member for Merebank is within his rights. He is entitled to discuss any of the various items which appear in the Schedule and as I understand it that is precisely what the hon member is doing. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is absolutely necessary to ensure that the staff employed—staff holding key positions—are productive in the various job categories. We cannot afford the situation where a highly-paid staff is found spending idle hours doing very little or nothing, and still getting paid. One does not pay R1 000 as a salary for a graded clerk to sell R500 worth of stamps, and at the same time throw in a manager to supervise his work.

Because provision has been made for overtime—I mentioned R75 500 000—because this vast amount of money is available staff may sometimes put off work in order to do it later so that they can cash in. I do not say that this is happening, but it is probable because the incentives are there. I do not see why so much money should be allocated for overtime.

On the contrary, I think work should be cost-effective. I once observed that there were about four people doing one unit of work. One person was doing the work with someone helping him with the supplies—the job was of a technical nature—while the main man was standing there watching them do the work. He was just there as a manager supervising the job. It is not uncommon to find that people waste time because there is no careful supervision of their work to see that the work is cost-effective. I found one man sleeping in the car, having a good snooze while the others were working.

I have brought these few matters to the attention of the hon the Minister because I believe that in the interests of the economy and the country, we should operate the accounts of posts and telecommunications in a more businesslike manner. I speak with a lot of sincerity. I have a lot of respect for the hon the Minister and his department. I do not want to be overly critical but I think we should explore ways and means of catering for expenses so that we do not pass them on to the consumer who has to pay in the end.

Mr Chairman, I wish to place on record that I thank you very much for drawing the attention of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to the procedure on Schedules. I cannot believe that he as the leader of the Official Opposition is so incompetent. [Interjections.]

An important aspect of the Schedule of staff expenses on which I would like to question the hon the Minister is the contribution to medical aid schemes. Many different medical aid schemes are listed. We would like the hon the Minister to tell us exactly why there are so many different medical aid schemes for staff. Do they not have only one medical aid scheme? It is interesting to note that every medical aid scheme in the country seems to be involved with post and telecommunication services.

The other important matter I want to raise concerns item 2.3—“Vehicles”. Quite a large sum of money has been voted for vehicles. We have noticed that there are many accidents involving vehicles of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. I think the hon the Minister should be able to tell us whether these expenses are incurred through payment for damage to other people’s vehicles. If that is so, I believe the hon the Minister should also tell this House whether any money is being recovered for damages caused by employees of the Post Office. These are very important aspects. The Department of Posts and Telecommunications usually votes large sums of money for motor vehicles every year. The hon the Minister should also be able to tell us whether any of the money voted is intended for new vehicles.

Mr Chairman, at the rate that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is increasing tariffs, as regards both telephones and postage, I have no doubt that when it is privatised it will take off as rapidly as Telcom did in Great Britain and that those who invest money in equity in the privatised Post Office or the Telecom equivalent in South Africa will make a large profit. Clearly, 16 cents for the posting of one letter from Durban to Pinetown is an outrageously high charge and the metering of local calls is also rather outrageous. Clearly, what the hon the Minister intends to do, is to sweeten the product, so that when it is put onto the equity market, there will be a rush. I would urge hon members of this House to be ready with their cheque books so that as soon as it goes onto the equity market, they will be first in the queue in order to buy shares in the privatised Telcom. They will make a lot of money.

Having said that, I wish to express appreciation to the hon the Minister for having announced that at long last, after 20 years of battling on the part of those living in Reservoir Hills, a post office is going to be established in my constituency. I am grateful to the hon the Minister for that. My only distress is that building operations have not yet started, but never mind that. The fact that the hon the Minister has given an unequivocal promise is something which gladdens our hearts and it will certainly make my constituents very happy, because they have been suffering for the last 20 years.

However, the fact that I am grateful to the hon the Minister does not let him off the hook. I want him to tell this House what he and his department are doing about the promotion of people who are Brown and Black to middle-management and executive levels. We know that there are a number of Black and Brown postmasters. We know that they serve ethnic communities. Qualbert is in the periphery of a so called Indian area, and in other areas too it is the Indian or Coloured areas or the Black townships where one finds Black and Brown postmasters.

I believe it is high time that the Post Office administration becomes colour-blind and that the hon the Minister follows the dictum of his colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, who is the “hoofleier” of his party, that South Africa must move to a stage where race and colour are not desiderata and the ability of a person is the primary, and indeed the sole, criterion for the advancement of that person.

We appreciate that under the benign influence of Mr Louis Rive, whichever way it is pronounced—I apologise to the gentleman for not pronouncing his name correctly—apartheid within the Post Office system was largely eliminated, certainly in regard to pay scales and certainly in regard to the other benefits that Post Office employees receive, viz, housing subsidies and so on. However, I have looked around and I must confess that I have been rather dismayed at the fact that when one goes to the upper echelons, one would think that one is in Denmark or Scandinavia. I would not even say England, because in England today there are large numbers of Brown and Black people in the upper echelons of the civil service and also of Telecom. However, one would think that one were in a country populated entirely by White people, simply because one does not see the faces of those who do not have a pink hue. I know that the hon the Minister himself, personally, would want to remedy that. I have known the hon the Minister for some time and I know that he personally would not want to see racism at any stage. I urge him, in the time that remains—as it will probably take a year or two before he finally relinquishes control of this particular administration when it is sold out to private enterprise, to make quite sure that in fact the upper echelons of the administration of the Post Office services reflect the population structure of the country so that people will not only be enabled to earn better salaries, but—if that happens—interracial harmony will be promoted, which is something we desperately need in this country.

If the hon member for Merebank is right—I have my doubts about this—in what he implied by using the expression: “Do not spend R1 000 in paying a man who sells R500 worth of stamps”, I must confess that my own empirical observations of the Post Office do not suggest that Post Office employees of any race or colour are lazy. They seem to be working as hard as anyone else does, indeed harder than many people within 20 metres of me at the present time. However, if what the hon member for Merebank insinuated is true, namely that there are employees of the Post Office who are paid R1 000 just to sell R500 worth of commodities, then I will be the first to get up and say: Sack the Minister—he is incompetent and his administration is terrible. However, I do not believe that.

All that I want to advise my colleague, the hon member for Merebank, is that Members of Parliament have the right of free speech in Parliament and that imposes certain constraints on us. The most important constraint is one of responsibility. When we criticise the Public Service—any aspect of it—we must do so responsibly, and not in a careless sort of way, because if his words were quoted outside, it could create a wholly wrong impression of what happens within the Post Office administration.

The point has been made that there are a number of medical aid schemes. Quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with that.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: As regards the statement made by the hon member that I said that we pay a man a salary of R1 000 to do R500 worth of work, I merely used it as an illustration.

Order! The hon member must raise a point of order and not make a statement. The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I think I must correct this. I did not say that the hon member claimed that R1 000 was being spent on someone who was selling R500 worth of stamps. What I suggested was that by his rather ill-advised, rhetorical question, he insinuated that that was the case. My advice to him is to be careful in future when saying things here in this House.

However, I want to revert to the question of medical aid schemes. I do not think that it is necessary for a large administration such as that controlled by the hon the Minister to be party to any monopolistic situation. Certainly, considering the large number of employees within the administration, members of the administration should have the opportunity of supporting one or other medical aid scheme out of the number, because the greater the competition among medical aid schemes, the better for the employees who support that medical aid scheme. We should try and see to it that there is a sufficient degree of competition so that the best possible service is obtained by those who benefit from it.

In regard to the administration generally—and I want to conclude on this note—within my constituency I have had a case of extreme rudeness on the part of an employee. I took it up with the local postmaster and it was rectified. In any establishment one gets black sheep, but by and large we have had good service. We must acknowledge that. My only complaint is that there still remains a relic of, I would not say “baasskap”, but of the former attitude of racial superiority in the employment of staff at the upper levels.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to item 2.2 of the Schedule on page 7 of the Estimates.

I represent the largest suburban dormitory in South Africa. To give the hon the Minister an idea of what I am talking about, Phoenix is bordered in the south by Kwa Mashu, while it borders Inanda and almost touches Verulam. For this vast township the postal authorities have allocated just one post office. I am not asking the good hon Minister to build a post office in every unit. I know that is impossible, but the building of small post offices placed at strategic points will be a very useful and essential service for the residents of Phoenix.

Postal delivery is an essential and vital service in any town anywhere in the world. To promote an efficient service for the workers who are predominantly the residents of Phoenix, there should be mobile post offices. I know that at present there are three units in Phoenix without postal deliveries. After a number of pleas, I must acknowledge that we have one new post office in Phoenix in Sunford. I am inclined to believe that this new post office is actually a replacement of the one in Mount Edgecombe which is old and outdated. I want to prevail upon the hon the Minister to investigate the situation. I want to invite him to Phoenix, because I do not think the hon the Minister knows where Phoenix is. I want to extend to him a very cordial invitation. He and I should do a survey, because I think he should know the size and extent of this large township which suffers from inadequate postal and communications facilities.

A telephone is a very, very expensive item. The majority of the residents of Phoenix cannot afford the installation of a telephone. May I suggest that call boxes be placed at strategic points. This will alleviate the suffering of those who have to go without a telephone. I want to ask the hon the Minister to think about this in his next Estimates.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their participation in this debate. This is really an excellent opportunity of finding out what is happening in the field and my staff and I regard whatever criticism is levelled at us in a constructive light.

We appreciate the approach of hon members in these cases.

We consider the discussion of the budget to be very important. It enables us to get the feeling of our operation in the various places. I remind hon members that they must not only use the opportunity afforded by this debate but that my and the Postmaster General’s doors are open throughout the year in respect of any complaint or suggestion that they wish to make. We have had excellent co-operation from all hon members.

I shall now deal with the points raised by hon members. The hon member for Merebank referred to the general staff expenses compared to the total budget and also to the fringe benefits. It is a fact that the staff expenses compared to the total operating budget for 1989-90 will come to about 41%. If it is taken into account that our staff complement decreased by 1,9% during 1987-88 and by 0,23% during the ten months ending in January 1989 and that the demand for the services of the Post Office has generally increased, I am satisfied—we went into this very thoroughly—that we are making good progress towards reducing staff expenditure.

I wish to assure hon members that we have been looking at all these items very carefully. We can still improve considerably and I take the advice given by hon members seriously. We shall continue to watch the situation very closely.

The fringe benefits to which the hon member referred are part and parcel of the total earnings of the employees and are very much on a par with those applicable in the public service and in the private sector. We have an ongoing investigation into the private sector to see how we compare with them. We must ensure that we do not lose out and thereby lose our best employees to the private sector, but we have been keeping in close touch with the market.

The hon member also referred particularly to the productivity in the Post Office and to the fact that observers watch the employees work. I agree with him that it is very important. Hon members must bear in mind that the Post Office is one of the largest—indeed, one of the top—business concerns in this country. It must be run according to business practices. In recent times we have particularly concentrated on achieving just that.

I think hon members will agree that over the past two years operating profits have been very encouraging. We have made good profits and one cannot do this unless one reduces one’s overheads in a reasonable and productive way.

What we also did in this regard was to cut back on our capital expenditure which was a vast item. The interest was a considerable burden. We have succeeded to a large extent in streamlining the whole operation but there is still a little more sweetening to be done, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills pointed out.

I have taken note of the suggestions made by the hon member for Merebank. He also referred to the large amounts spent on overtime. The Post Office staff work irregular hours, especially with regard to maintenance and mail-sorting duties, and overtime payment is therefore unavoidable. It is simply one of those things. In addition, overtime rates increase as salaries increase and therefore we have to budget for a higher amount. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member Mr Thaver referred to the number of medical aid schemes. There is a historical reason for these medical schemes. They came into operation at various times. They concluded contracts in terms of which they could offer good benefits to their members. I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills gave an excellent reply to the hon member Mr Thaver. The fact is that there is competition and I cannot prescribe to members to which one they should belong—it is left in their hands. There is no prohibition on the part of the Post Office, namely that membership should be exclusively on racial lines. We leave the running of it in the hands of the people who are members. If they still feel that they are getting a good service, it is not for us to interfere.

The hon member referred to vehicles. We are watching the situation very closely. I think the item to which the hon member referred related mostly to vehicles that are not fit to be used and cannot be repaired any more. The cause of the damage is very closely monitored. If there is negligence on the part of Post Office officials they are held responsible. The hon member can rest assured because I have been told quite recently by the Postmaster General that a very close watch is kept on that very important item which has grown over the past year.

I now come to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. The 16 cents charge for a letter which will soon become 18 cents is still well below the cost of delivery and all the other costs attendant upon letters. We have undertaken very accurate and specialised cost exercises and we have established that the 18 cents charged is definitely well below cost.

That is why the Post Office is being supported by the more remunerative telecommunications section. If we do not do that, our postal services will go bankrupt. We are looking into ways and methods of making our postal services more cost-related. An increase in postal tariffs from 16 cents to 18 cents—which we do reluctantly—is one of the reasonable and economically justified steps that we have to take.

Mr Chairman, since the hon Minister is younger than I am, he could not have forgotten writing all kinds of letters and poems to his young lady. Would he not say that 18 cents for a stamp is unfair to the young fellow who writes letters?

In matters of the heart I would agree with the hon member.

In regard to privatisation, we do not expect privatisation in the Post Office to take place until about two or three years have elapsed. The reason for this is that the Post Office has substantial debts, incurred during the years when capital expenditure was undertaken, although for good cause. We have to improve our capital structure in particular. We are doing quite well, but in the process we will have to think very carefully what is to happen to the Post Office and to the Savings Bank. At present part of our investigation relates to making them as economically viable as possible. At present it serves as a social service which is cross-subsidised by telecommunications. What will happen to the postal service if the telecommunications department is split from the postal service? That is a question which hon members and I will have to answer and at that time the Government will have to take a decision as to whether the cross-subsidisation is to be replaced by some other contribution from the State—in other words, taxes. However, as hon members have pointed out, we must first of all try to make the Post Office side as self-sufficient as possible.

It is also disappointing to me that people of colour are not seen more often in the middle and higher positions in the Post Office. That goes for business in general and not just for the Post Office. It is also noticeable in the private sector. The Post Office is completely colour-blind and is going out of its way to provide training opportunities and bursaries and to get the younger people to take part in this. I would like to repeat what I told hon members earlier. Hon members can assist in pointing out the advantages of being a member of an organisation such as the Post Office to the younger people and to others in their communities.

As far as benefits are concerned, I want to say that we are in a position where we compete with the private sector. The benefits are considerable and the job stability is of course much better than in the private sector. A position in the Post Office is therefore something that is saleable and can be marketed. I think I have answered the hon member on most of the issues.

As far as the hon member for Phoenix is concerned, I fully realise that his constituency is a vast one. I am also Minister of Home Affairs, and I think his constituency is right at the top of the list as far as the number of voters is concerned. Perhaps hon members should vote him a double salary in this regard, because obviously he must work harder than other hon members! It is a vast area, and I have taken note of what the hon member has said. I have received a note from the Postmaster General to the effect that we are going to look into this position. I am quite sure that the regional director for Natal and Free State—he is responsible for those two areas—who is stationed in Durban will visit the hon member’s area together with him. Subsequently we could consider what practical steps should be taken.

Debate concluded.

Schedule agreed to.

Second Reading debate

Mr Chairman, firstly I wish to commend the hon the Minister for his positive attitude in regard to fair criticism. I have no qualms in that regard whatsoever. I also want to agree that there is no question of colour practices in so far as employment, training, housing subsidies and so forth are concerned. However, I cannot say this when it comes to service. I want to take up this issue from where the hon member for Phoenix left off, and refer to a parochial matter. Out at Shallcross, which happens to be the first township developed in Durban by the Department of Community Development, the people have been agitating—if I may use the word—for a post office for a little more than 20 years. As yet, it has not materialised. The department has taken a decision to build a post office. To some extent that is good news. The area has been serviced by a mobile post office.

We have another problem in the township of Harinagar, which lies between two sectors which are already serviced by mobile services. For the last four years these people have written in and requested that this area, too, be included in the area serviced by the mobile postal units until a permanent post office is built. To date they have not received an encouraging reply.

I quote from a letter dated 8 February 1989:

I see that there is some relationship between Shallcross and Phoenix—

Unfortunately it does not meet with our requirements, nor does it meet with the people’s requirements. I was present at a meeting recently at which they actually went to town.

I know that we were told that if we went to Parliament all these problems would be solved. I do not want to emphasise that aspect any more, but it places us as MPs in a very invidious position when these matters are not resolved after we have written to the authorities. I do not think that requires more than one person.

There are some 300 new residents in this area—I may say it is an elite area—so one can understand the frustration of these thinking people who are critical of the services rendered to them. I am aware of the ability of the hon the Minister and his dedication to his department. I really feel that he can resolve this by contacting the regional director by telephone or by letter. I sincerely trust that this matter can be expedited so that these people do not have to wait for another six or seven months for this kind of mobile service, and that this service can be afforded to them within the next month or two.

Mr Chairman, I would like to start with a question to the hon the Minister, since the hon the Minister has said that everybody has to make a profit and so does the Post Office. I would like to ask the hon the Minister exactly how much profit the Department of Posts and Telecommunications made in the last financial year, and how much profit was made from selling postage stamps alone, apart from all the other profits which they make. I feel that the price of postage stamps going up from 16c to 18c seems a bit ridiculous. Every poor person—I am not even talking about the rich and the middle income groups—has only one means of communication and that is writing a letter. For that they have to pay 18c for delivery.

In any business when one goes to wholesalers and manufacturers—and this is a business—the price is usually lower for goods which are mass produced. When it comes to using postage stamps, they are definitely printed in large numbers and I do not see why the department could not subsidise postage stamps and reduce the price. The price has now gone up to 18c but I feel that it should be reduced to 16c or less.

Something else I would like to know relates to what hon members have been saying about the employment of people of colour. We definitely do have people of colour in the Post Office. There is no doubt about it and we see it daily. What, however, are the chances of promotion, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills pointed out? How far can they rise in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications? We mostly see them as postmasters. I have not seen anyone higher up than that. Others may have, but I definitely have not.

They must climb the stepladder.

We still have to get that type of stepladder. The Post Office has not yet provided that kind of stepladder.

It is also a fact—which has been brought to my notice recently—that a man with 12 years’ experience in posts and telecommunications has been replaced by a man with three years’ experience. I cannot understand the department’s thinking. I do not want to mention names, because this man is liable to lose his job and he specifically asked me not to mention his name. How can this hon Minister’s department justify putting a man with three years’ experience above a man with 12 years’ experience just because he is White, whereas the other is non-White? I cannot understand that way of thinking. The Government, every one of us here and even the hon the Minister and his party are working towards normalisation. This is not what I call normalisation. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, taking up the point which the hon member for Lenasia East has just made, I want to say that it is absolutely imperative that there is further mobility in the echelons of the public service. I am not unmindful of the problem. I want to tell hon members here that I run a small legal practice and within my own establishment a very valued member of staff received an opportunity of promotion elsewhere. I wanted to retain her, but I realised that if I retained her and gave her the promotion, it would upset all the other staff, and I had to let her go. When one has a bureaucracy, whether it is a large bureaucracy or a small one, there are constraints and difficulties about jumping people for promotion or bringing people from outside into higher levels. I am not unaware of the difficulties. I am also aware that this concept of affirmative action has many pitfalls. I know there are problems, but a definite attempt must be made to see to it that the administration reflects the racial composition of the country.

The hon the Minister raised the question of cross-subsidies. I do not think any hon member in this House will want any segment of the service to continue to be cross-subsidised, particularly if Telcom is going to be privatised. Clearly, the delivery of letters is a social and public service. However, extra revenue could be generated.

A great deal of junk mail is delivered to people at cut-rate prices. A large number of parcels for mail-order businesses are being delivered through the Post Office. Here the Post Office is being used as a vehicle for profit-making. In those instances I would say that the Post Office is entitled to charge a higher rate than that for ordinary civilian letters which are just communication between individuals without a profit being involved. Direct mail advertising is a form of advertising, so there is no reason why large businesses should get a subsidised service to do advertising for them, whether it is the Reader’s Digest or anybody else. We receive that kind of material daily. That is one way, as I say, in which revenue could be generated.

I also want to refer the hon the Minister to a little mail delivery service which my firm employs in Durban. I think we pay something like R1 400 a year for this. Documents are delivered to Pietermaritzburg on a daily basis. A member of my staff leaves it at a depot and the document is delivered the following day. It costs us a fair amount of money but we find it cost-effective. If private enterprise could undertake that kind of service, why should the Post Office not undertake a similar service, considering that the Post Office is reasonably efficient? They can do it. That would be a further form of earning revenue for the Post Office, rather than letting competitors undercut the postal service from that point of view.

I want to lodge a complaint with the hon the Minister. In my constituency, because we did not have a post office, I approached the postmaster to nominate storekeepers who would sell stamps and possibly postal orders, simply as a commodity. I asked storekeepers to do this as a service, and I also pointed out to the storekeepers that if they sold stamps, that would be something which might attract additional business. There was one storekeeper who agreed to do so at no charge. What happened was that an inspector from the Post Office went to this shop, and there he found that there was a public telephone installed inside the shop. He then checked his records and found that it was not economically viable. Then, instead of allowing the storekeeper to sell stamps, he removed the public telephone system. The storekeeper was very angry with me and I have certainly lost an entire family of voters as a consequence of trying to get a service to the public established by the Post Office. The storekeeper took the view that because I took the matter up, the telephone that was inside the shop was removed.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon the Minister for some of the replies he has given on matters that I raised with regard to the Schedules. However, I would like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to some very important issues, particularly non-White employees in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. Unfortunately, whereas this was one forum in which we were able to raise these matters, this will now be taken away from Parliament and the Budget will be considered by the board of directors of the private company. I do not know whether we will have any opportunity to raise these matters.

I have received reports from certain Post Office employees, particularly in the telecommunications section. Some of these non-White employees are very highly qualified in that division, while some of them even have degrees. However, while they are given the opportunity to apply for the positions which are advertised by the department, when it comes to appointments, they are overlooked. Therefore quite a number of the non-White employees are so frustrated that they do not wish to apply for any positions that are advertised by the Post Office. I want the hon the Minister to look into the problem, particularly with regard to the aggrieved party in our community—the non-White employees. I do not blame the hon the Minister, I do not blame the Postmaster General or the head of department. I think the people whose responsibilities include applications, appointments and promotions are directly responsible for this matter.

The other point, which was raised by the hon member for Cavendish, concerned a post office in Shallcross. When this matter was raised in 1985, the then hon Minister wrote a very nice letter saying that consideration had been given to the establishment of a post office in the area and that the matter would be placed on the Estimates. I have the letter to this effect. I do not have it here, but I can produce it. I have furnished the Advisory Board at Shallcross with a copy of the letter. If the Post Office has any difficulty with regard to establishing a post office in its own building, I think it can rent one. There are buildings in Shallcross which can be rented for the purpose of establishing a post office, even on a small scale. However, if it can establish a post office in its own building, I think there is land available on which to erect it. The hon the Minister must consider this. I think the hon member for Cavendish made a case for this because Shallcross is a very large community and those people were not asked to go and stay there—they were resettled in that area in terms of the Group Areas Act. I think provision must be made for some of these facilities.

There is another point I wish to raise. Now that the Post Office will be a private company, will the Budget be presented to Parliament? If not, I want to know whether the Budget will come before the joint committee responsible for looking at revenue and expenditure as far as posts and telecommunications are concerned.

I would also like to know whether the annual accounts of the Post Office will be presented to Parliament, or whether they will come before a joint committee. After all, this is one of the largest institutions in the country and the main shareholder of this private company will be the Government. I hope the hon the Minister will be able to tell us exactly how the mechanics of the budget will work, and if the accounts will be presented to Parliament.

Mr Chairman, I have a long-playing record which I have been playing in this Chamber for a number of years. It is so worn out now that I do not think I will be able to play it again. I have been asking for a post office in Northdale for ever so long. The staff promised me that there was going to be a survey, and that a mobile unit would be provided while they were doing the survey. However, at present there is still no mobile unit. There is not even an indication that a post office will be built for the population of 50 000 in the municipal area of Northdale, let alone the adjacent area which houses a population of another 30 000. I would like to ask the hon the Minister what number of residents should be in an area before a post office or mobile post office will be provided.

I think there are only one or two telephone booths in the whole Northdale area and these serve a population of 50 000 people.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Red Hill says telephone booths cannot be obtained, because none are available.

To my knowledge there are only four postal letter boxes in Northdale. The people who live there are mostly low paid factory workers. That is the only means of correspondence between themselves and their relatives or friends. That is why this is urgently needed.

I now come to the increase in telephone and postal rates. The hon the Minister has promised the hon member for Reservoir Hills a post office, and I wonder if that is not the reason for the increase in telephone and postal rates. [Interjections.] I hope that is not the case.

There is another issue that I want to take up with the hon the Minister. I know that there are recreational facilities for White post office staff, but I do not know if the same facilities exist for people of colour. I am not aware of them. I did raise this matter on a previous occasion. I can see some hon members laughing, so there might be facilities available to people of colour, but I am not sure about this.

I now come to irregular postal services. Recently somebody wrote to a journalist from Pietermaritzburg on 2 March. He received this circular on 8 March. The distance which this letter travelled from the post office to the jounalist’s house was only five kilometers. The circular was very important, since the journalist had to be at a meeting on 7 March, but he only received the circular on 8 March. He has not been given an adequate reason for the delay of this circular.

To some people the telephone is a luxury, but I want to say that it is a necessity. People who suffer from cardiac diseases or other illnesses need telephone services. If they do not have access to a telephone, I do not see any reason why there should be an increase in telephone rates. Also, people who are assaulted or burgled at home cannot use telephone booths because nothing is available in the area. That is also a necessity and not a luxury. I hope this matter will be attended to by the hon the Minister and his staff.

Mr Chairman, at present postage costs are determined on the basis of the mass of the letter or the article sent. I want to ask whether postage costs could not be based on distance covered. I worked out that if I sent out 5 000 ordinary letters to be delivered to 5 000 homes within a radius of two to five kilometres, it would cost me R900. On the other hand, if I hired five vehicles with ten workers, and it took the whole day to deliver these letter, I would probably do it for one third of that amount. The hon member for Reservoir Hills discussed this matter on a similar basis.

I think a lot more people would take advantage of posting letters at a reduced price if we based postage cost on distance covered. The cost of sending letters quite a distance should be increased. I am not suggesting that, I am just mentioning it.

The metering of local telephone calls will affect the lower income group and new subscribers and it will particularly affect the Black community where we have a growing market. Would it not be possible to perhaps consider some kind of rebate based on income and ability to pay? The hon member for Newholme mentioned the fact that people needing medical attention might be unable to cope without a telephone. That should be considered on merit.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cavendish referred to Shallcross and he made out a very good case for something to be done about it. I want to give the hon member the assurance that I shall look into the matter during the course of this week to establish what the position is. I am obviously not in a position to give an immediate reply to the hon member. However, I shall inform him personally on exactly what the situation is.

The hon member for Lenasia East referred to the profits on postage stamps. The fact is that in the present financial year the losses on postal services which are, in fact, mainly related to the postage of letters, are estimated at R166 million. That must be made good by the telephone service. This is therefore something which hon members must take into account.

We carried out a very accurate cost study and discovered that the handling and delivery cost of a single standardised letter is 28 cents. As hon members know, the postage fee that we shall be charging now is 18 cents. However, hon members can rest assured that we shall look into all advice and suggestions, such as that just given by the hon member for Merebank. We will consider all the aspects to which hon members referred.

I thank the hon member for Reservoir Hills for the suggestions that he made. We have considered very carefully the question of junk mail and there is no doubt that we must look at this in order to see whether we can save money and whether we can charge more for people who can and should be paying more. It is quite right that direct mailing is a form of advertising and those people should not benefit from any subsidised costs.

The hon member also referred to the aspect of delivery. We will most certainly consider this matter. I can tell hon members that we are already investigating all these things. We are looking at other countries abroad. I believe one of the only post offices in the world that makes a profit is the one in Hong Kong. However, one cannot compare Hong Kong to South Africa because there are vast differences. Still, we want to see how they do it because perhaps we could get some very interesting advice from them.

I believe that the post office in Ireland also makes a profit. We are in touch with them. The post office in West Germany has a similar problem to ours at the present time. They also have a savings bank which is creating a problem. They also have their postal services subsidised by the telecommunications side. I believe that they are now going to deregulate—they are not going to follow the British example—and have these three aspects running separately. We want to get their views on these matters. We want to know how they plan to operate postal services without its dragging down the telecommunications side.

In order to lower the cost of a letter to 16 cents or less we will have to increase the telephone costs. That will be unfair because the telephone user will then have to pay for the letter writer and I do not think that would be the proper way to go about it.

I want to thank hon members for their interest. They have obviously been thinking about these matters and we will most certainly look at their suggestions.

I want to say to the hon member Mr Thaver that it is without a doubt against the rules and regulations of the Post Office that a White person should get preference over a person of colour, all other factors being equal. This is most certainly not in terms of the policy and the instructions of the Post Office. On condition that their experience, qualifications and motivation are equal, all persons are given the same opportunities. If these instructions are perhaps not put into operation, I—together with my top management—undertake to see to it that they are executed to the full.

The hon member Mr Thaver also referred to the position in Shallcross and the leasing of buildings. We will most certainly take this into account and we will give attention to his views.

He also asked whether the Post Office accounts will be presented to Parliament or to a joint committee. These are issues which we are now planning and as hon members gathered from my budget speech it is intended that a board of directors be appointed for each of these two companies. It is the intention that the annual report and the accounts of the Post Office be tabled and discussed in Parliament.

The hon member said that the Government will be the largest shareholder. Such things still have to be discussed. If and when privatisation takes place we will consider the position and to what extent, if any, the Government will be a shareholder.

It is not automatic that the Government will remain a shareholder. It will all depend on those circumstances. However, there is one thing the hon member may rest assured about: Parliament will remain in a position to control and scrutinise the operation of the Post Office at ah times, if it is still in public hands.

I have taken note of the hon member for Newholme’s appeals in connection with Northdale. I think there is merit in what he has said. Here I also want to undertake to let the hon member know as soon as possible what the position is there. It is true that the telephone is a very important part of one’s life nowadays. I support the hon member in his approach.

I will refer the hon member for Merebank’s ingenious suggestion concerning distance to the department. The fact is, of course, that a very substantial part of the cost relating to a letter is also the handling charge.

I thank hon members for their participation and for the constructive suggestions that they have made. I am very pleased to be able to say, without any hesitation, that the Post Office is a well-run organisation. This can be seen by anybody and if one looks at its statements and figures it does create confidence. I am quite sure that we will continue to improve. I am very pleased that hon members have been very complimentary in their appreciation of the work done by the employees of the Post Office. I will ask the Postmaster General to convey that to Post Office employees. Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.