Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this, my first, opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this portfolio. I wish him well. I hope he will be successful in this portfolio, and that his success will also extend to the Post Office as a whole so that the country will be able to benefit as a result. This hon. Minister is the fourth Minister since 1977 whom we have had the pleasure of listening to while delivering his budget speech. The complex technological advancement of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, I believe, can only progress in an atmosphere of stability.

I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister in my personal capacity for the courtesies he has extended to me and to my group. Above all, I want to thank him for the comprehensive and detailed survey of his department which he has given us here today. May I, on behalf of the PFP, associate myself with the remarks concerning the staff of the Post Office Administration, including Mr. Bester and his Directors, as well as the entire staff who, I believe, should be commended for their loyalty and devoted service to this department.

This year’s budget, Mr. Speaker, is indeed a record budget in the sense that it reveals an overall increase of something like R400 million or 16,8%. Revenue has increased by 23,9% above that of last year. The capital expenditure of the Post Office has increased by 20,5% above that of last year. In that sense it is of course a record budget. The Post Office, however, is able to control and to regulate its budget when necessary, and we do expect its monetary requirements to rise from year to year as it expands. It is therefore no surprise that the Post Office finds itself in its present position. It is encouraging to know, however, that we have kept pace with the technological and electronic improvements, and that we have also kept pace with international developments in the world of telecommunications.

As the hon. the Minister has said, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications also provides a modern, adequate digital network to carry the vast streams of voice, text, data, and video traffic generated by each section of society, including the demands which are in fact made by the Government as well as by the private sector. Although the hon. the Minister has not referred to it, we know about the announcement of the intended investigation into the possibility of the provision of three satellites. This will of course require very, very careful consideration before we decide to commit ourselves to this principle because, no doubt, if we do we will certainly exceed the R200 million limit that has been estimated for this purpose. However, Sir, I am alarmed that in spite of this being the first budget the hon. the Minister has presented to this House, the hon. the Minister thought to emulate his predecessor who made an extra-parliamentary announcement on 5 January prior to his budget speech. This hon. Minister did exactly the same thing on 11 February this year when he announced increases of 14,6% of the total estimated revenue. He is now seeking to extract a further R270 million from the public of South Africa and by so doing promote the inflation rate that much further. I want to express the strongest protest and objection of the official Opposition to the hon. the Minister’s announcement. I base these objections on four grounds which I shall mention very briefly.

Firstly, we object to the fact that this statement was an extra-Parliamentary statement. I am happy to see that the hon. the Minister has shown a twinge of conscience in this regard today and I want to express the hope that he will not do this sort of thing again because it does in fact render the debate in this regard sterile.

Our second objection is that the tariff increases are too high. The figure of 14,6% to which I have referred, is a misleading one in the sense that it does not relate to the tariff increases themselves but to the revenue. I say this because the tariff increase in regard to the postage rate, for example, amounted to 25%. If one takes it from 1 April of last year to 1 April of this year one finds that the increase has been 100%. In addition, the unit charges in respect of telephones have gone up by 16% and the installation charges for telephones have been increased by 50%.

Our third objection to the statement is the fact that the statement itself is inflationary and has come at a time when the Government should be doing everything in its power to curb inflation. The statement was therefore ill-timed. The hon. the Prime Minister had something to say about the increase in the Escom tariffs and also in regard to petrol prices increases. These increases were then postponed. I say again that the statement itself is inflationary because it does set off a chain reaction, the end result of which is that John Citizen will have to pay and the inflation ball, which is the enemy of the economy, will continue to bounce higher and higher.

Our fourth objection is the fact that there appears to be very little consideration given in this announcement to alternate means of financing that could have been exploited and explained. These increases affect the whole of commerce and industry and I believe that I have the support of the whole of commerce and industry when I express our opposition to these increases. In addition, as I have already said, such an extra-Paliamentary statement does render debate sterile in the sense that the hon. the Minister does not have to motivate those increases or deal with the merits of the increases themselves. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will be prepared during the course of this debate to lend an ear to representations made to him not only by hon. members on this side of the House but also by representatives of commerce and industry to review and if necessary withdraw the tariff increases that have already been announced. If those tariff increases are in fact a fait accompli then what in fact he has done is to remove the Prince and leave us with a Hamlet. I do find it puzzling, however, that the hon. the Minister made this announcement after having announced only a few days before that he had come to an agreement with the staff association of the Post Office to the effect they would not be receiving any increases in salaries. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister had disclosed to them at that stage that he intended increasing tariffs because, if he did not, I think he will have caused Parliament and the Government grave embarrassment in that the staff associations were not informed that these tariff increases were to be effected.

In regard to the entire financial structure of the Post Office and with regard to the financing of capital expenditure from the operating surplus I believe that the time has come for the whole financial structuring of the Post Office to be investigated as well as ensuring that every effort is made to increase productivity.

I believe that the debate on this budget that lies ahead of us will give us the opportunity to examine all these aspects, and therefore I wish to move at this stage—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

No prospecting or mining of any nature shall be undertaken on any land included in a park except

The amendments will firstly confirm the legislature’s firm intention to prohibit prospecting and mining in existing parks. The second amendment will give the Minister the necessary power to commission environmental impact assessments. He will also have the power to make controlling regulations to limit the means and methods which are to be employed in cases where prospecting and mining in future parks may be proposed.

The first amendment will also allay our fears and remove any danger that a future court may misinterpret present intentions regarding the inviolability of existing parks.

I should like to use this opportunity to react briefly to the hon. Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate. He made certain comments on the question of mining in the Kruger National Park and the coking coal deposits which are found there. First of all I want to say that I warmly welcome his absolute reassurance that only Parliament can authorize any mining of the coking coal in the Kruger National Park. I am concerned, however, by the hon. the Minister’s further reference to the matter when he said, according to his uncorrected Hansard, that assuming there are these deposits which the Division of Geological Survey has confirmed, the following—

I should like to cross swords with the hon. the Minister on this issue. I hope the hon. the Minister’s remarks do not reflect his considered view, otherwise the conservationist community will regard him as being soft on mining coking coal in the Kruger National Park. I am talking about the Pafuri region of the park. I say this because the Pafuri region where the coking coal occurs is unique. It cannot simply be substituted for a piece of land of a similar size somewhere else in the vicinity. The area where the coking coal deposits occur is the confluence of a number of different ecosystems of Africa. The Wildlife Society says that there are no less than nine biomes that come together in that part of the Kruger National Park. It includes forests and sand-veld vegetation. It is an area with spectacular scenery where unique plant communities are found and wide varieties of animal species occur. It is also an area rich in archaeological interest. Furthermore, it has been shown that if this part of the park were excised—and let us say it is some 5% of the total land area of the park—it would affect far more than only 5% of the species that occur in the park. Let me refer the hon. the Minister to a symposium that was held at UCT in September 1980, jointly sponsored in conjunction with the Nature Foundation, a symposium in which this point was made about the effect that such a simple swopping of land would have. Furthermore, mining in the park would introduce complementary infrastructure such as roads, townships, offices, pipelines, power lines, etc., which would affect more than only the area that one might propose to mine. I say that to ever mine in the Pafuri region of the Kruger Park, would be to cash in our national heritage for a mess of pottage. The Kruger National Park must be treated as sacrosanct so that future generations can also enjoy it, particularly that part of it. It is precisely for these reasons, and because there might also be genuinely unique parts of future Parks which should similarly never be ruined—and I quoted the example of Langebaan Lagoon yesterday, which is a pertinent example as it is likely to be, together with its surrounding wetlands, part of the West Coast National Park—that we believe that it is important that the hon. the Minister should accept the proposal we have made in the second amendment, i.e. to give the hon. the Minister and the department the power to commission environmental impact assessments. That is the only way one will be able to identify those parts which are genuinely unique and which should be protected against the claims of any kind of exploitation, as opposed to those parts which could well be substituted or interchangeable with other parts.

Mr. Chairman, before coming to specific arguments I should just like to set straight a remark by the hon. member concerning what I am reported to have said in my Second Reading speech. My intention was to give the hon. member the absolute assurance that we are not, in the first place, going to allow mining activities in the existing parks without obtaining parliamentary approval for doing so. In addition, I told the hon. member how strongly Parliament felt about the issue that should Parliament, for strategic reasons, decide that the mining of certain strategic minerals should in fact take place, the Government should offer compensatory land. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. member said about the ecology of the particular area. I know that it is in the most northerly part of the Kruger National Park. However, I do not believe that it will be necessary in my or his lifetime to mine that coking coal there. What I actually intended to do was to emphasize the point and give the hon. member the assurance that we would not allow any mining activities or even prospecting in the existing park. I think he understands what I mean. It was actually just an extra assurance to him that we would not do it.

I have no problems with the hon. member’s first amendment. I am prepared to accept it because it merely says what we wish to say ourselves, albeit in other words. Therefore I have no problem with the hon. member’s first amendment.

† As regards the second amendment, I considered it very carefully. What the hon. member has in mind is to make environmental impact studies compulsory before prospecting or mining activities can take place in the new category of national parks provided for in this Bill. I cannot find fault with the object the hon. member has in mind. I think we all feel very strongly about not spoiling our environment. I maintain, however, that adequate provision for these matters has already been made in the regulations promulgated under section 12 of the Mines and Works Act, Act No. 27 of 1956.

Allow me, Sir, briefly to read a few extracts from these regulations. I quote from regulation 5.11(d)—

Regulation 5.12.1 reads—

Regulation 5.12.2 reads—

Regulation 5.13 reads—

Regulation 5.13.1 reads—

Regulation 5.13.2 reads—

Regulation 5.13.3 reads—

Having read all these regulations under the Act, I am of the opinion that, if I should accept this amendment, it would entail unnecessary duplication of existing regulations. I am told, further, that these regulations are enforced very harshly on any owner of a mine and, whether prospecting or mining takes place within these parks or outside of them, the mine owner will have to adhere to these regulations.

It is also obvious that during negotiations between the owner and the Parks Board these issues will be discussed fully and will form an integral part of the final contract. For these reasons—I am sure the hon. member will grant me the argument—I cannot, unfortunately, accept the amendment proposed by him.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good thing that the hon. the Minister is accepting the first leg of the amendment. The amendment is quite positively phrased. It has the same legal effect as the wording of the present clause. I agree with the hon. the Minister that we cannot accept the second leg of the amendment of the hon. member. When one looks at it one sees that it imposes curbs and restrictions on the Minister’s powers to negotiate. We must bear in mind that we shall now be dealing with a category 2 property which must be obtained by means of negotiation. If we were to introduce the restriction moved by the hon. member in his amendment, we would be restricting the Minister’s powers to negotiate. This would hamper him in his performance of the task we are in fact contemplating, which is to obtain additional properties. In my opinion that is sufficient reason for us to be unable to support the second leg of the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we want to make it clear that we support the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia. But we have difficulty in supporting the second leg of his amendment. As the hon. the Minister has explained adequate provision and safeguards, of the issues raised in this part of the amendment, exist in the Mines and Works Act. We are quite satisfied that these particular aspects is well covered. It must be made clear—and I think the hon. the Minister has a good appreciation of this particular fact—that there is very grave concern and strong feeling with regard to any suggestions that any mining whatsoever should take place in existing national parks.

Mr. Chairman, let me explain our problem to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister pointed out that there is a lot which the Inspector of Mines can in fact do. I appreciate that. However, our problem is that we believe that that authority should rest with the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. Surely he has a greater interest in protecting the environment than, say, the mining engineer. Let me refer hon. members to the problems we had in regard to the Kruger National Park five years ago. At that stage everybody was telling us how essential it was to have the coking coal of the Kruger National Park. If environmentalists campaign against it they are accused of being emotional about the issue, but if industrialists say they need the coal then it is just hard economic fact. As the hon. member Mr. Theunissen and the hon. member for Mooi River have pointed out there could actually be complications in implementing the second leg of the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia. However, we want to say to the hon. the Minister that possibly the department—I am sure they have the same interest as we have—could look at the intent of our amendment and see if at a later stage it cannot be implented in some way or another. They might have to be able to come back to the House with an amendment that could cover that intention. I think the present amendment perhaps does not tag on too well to clause 5.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to add my own comments to those made by the hon. member for Edenvale. What will happen in the present circumstances if there should be a conflict between the Department of Mines and the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs in regard to the application of the very impressive powers of the hon. the Minister of Energy Affairs? The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries will not have the power to have the last word in regard to a park which falls under his authority. We are trying to give the hon. the Minister the powers we think he might need to resolve a conflict between the two departmerits. Ministers normally welcome extra power; so it is interesting that this hon. Minister is declining the offer.

Sir, I think we have made the point. According to my interpretation of the National Parks Act, which gives power to make regulations on any matter not specified in the existing schedule of regulations about which regulations can be made, the Minister does not have the power to make regulations relating to mining in future parks, and he is going to need such power. I think it is absolutely indisputable that he should have the power to say what may or may not happen in parks that fall under his control. It may well be that this particular amendment to clause 5—we have no other option in terms of the rules—may be misplaced, but I would nevertheless like to plead with the hon. the Minister to take our point and to consider bringing a further amendment at some stage to give him the power under the schedule of regulations to do what we are asking him to do in terms of our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I just say that I do not doubt the bona fides of hon. members as regards their amendment! However, I just want to follow up what the hon. member Mr. Theunissen and the hon. member for Mooi River said. We must be careful not to bind ourselves absolutely as regards regulations and the making of regulations. At this stage very sensitive negotiations with people are in progress in regard to mineral rights. We must therefore be careful not to wreck negotiations as a result of additional burdens which can be placed on the owner of such a farm. That is all I am afraid of. I want to give hon. members the assurance that in negotiations conducted by the Parks Board with the owners of land—the Parks Board is undertaking the negotiations on behalf of the department— all these matters will naturally be discussed very thoroughly, and it will be pointed out to the owner of the land that there are very strict regulations in connection with mining and prospecting.

If one considers clause 2, which has already been accepted, the proposed subsection (2)(a) reads as follows—

1. (i) in respect of which the Minister of Community Development, with the concurrence of the board, has decided not to acquire any particular or all the mineral rights; or
2. (ii) that has been made available by the owner thereof by agreement with the Minister for the purposes of a national park …

In other words, what this actually means, is that agreement must be reached with the Minister. What I therefore want to say is that the matters raised by hon. members must of necessity be covered by the contract which is eventually entered into with the owner. We cannot tell him at a later date that he is subject to stricter regulations. Even if the contract only contains one clause stating that he is subject to the Mines and Works Act, he is automatically also subject to the regulations.

I can give hon. members the assurance that if in future we experience problems we shall definitely return to this House for the necessary amendments. In the interim we must see how this legislation works in practice. I am quite convinced that we shall not experience any problems in this regard, and I say this because the people with whom we are negotiating set as much store by conserving the environment as we do. That is why it is my standpoint that in the initial stages, at any rate, we shall not experience any problems, but if we do experience problems we shall return to this House.

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Amendment (2) negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, the tradition is that at the Third Reading we look at the implications of a Bill. I regard the Bill which we are now discussing as very important, and as such we should not let it go through this stage without looking at the implications flowing from it and without looking at the objectives we would like to achieve by means of it.

In the first instance the Bill makes it possible for more land to be made available for national parks. That is to be welcomed, because, as the hon. member for Constantia pointed out, only 2,4% of land area of South Africa is set aside for national parks. The second object of this Bill is to try to preserve certain species of animals, species which at the present moment are being threatened with extinction. In South Africa we have already seen the disappearance of the Cape Zebra, the blue buck and the Cape lion. Let us look at the two species which are mentioned in this Bill, species which are in a very threatened situation. We know that whereas in areas of the Transvaal the black rhino were fairly common at one stage in the early 1970s the Transvaal had to import black rhino from Natal. Then there was also a gift from Rhodesia of a further 12 rhino; so that a rhino herd is again beginning to build up. And it is not only in South Africa that this species is being threatened. Let us have a look at Africa. It was estimated that in 1970 there were approximately 200 000 rhino in East Africa; today there are only about 20 000. So South Africa has an important role to play in this field. Look at Asia. It has been estimated that there are only 2 000 rhino left in Asia. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is of course poaching. There has been tremendous poaching, particularly of rhino horn, which it is said is a better investment than gold. I am told that the cost of rhino horn, powdered rhino horn, is at the moment in excess of R300 an ounce.

What is it being used for?

Sir, without wishing to encourage the hon. member for Sandton to go poaching rhino, let me tell him that powdered rhino horn is used in the Middle East as an aphrodisiac, in China for fever and in Yemen for ceremonial daggers. Such daggers can cost up to R1 000. It is interesting to note that in Yemen is that the authorities there have now banned the importation of rhino horn. A similar situation exists in regard to elephant tusks. It was estimated that in 1976 about 50 000 elephants were killed just for their tusks. That means that about 4% of the total elephant population of Africa is being eliminated year by year. If one considers the high mortality rate amongst elephants, a rate of about 7% per annum, one can see to what extent elephants are being threatened with extinction. It is therefore encouraging to note that it has been estimated that the number of elephants killed for their tusks in 1980 was something like 37 000. This shows that something can be done. So this legislation is to be welcomed in that it is taking steps to protect those two species particularly.

But this debate has achieved a third objective, something just as important, if not more important, than the other, and that is that we received the categorical assurance from the hon. the Minister that he would not allow mining in the Kruger National Park without coming to Parliament first. We welcome that assurance. Such an assurance is necessary because this question tends to come up time and time again. During the Committee Stage I made the point that five years ago one thought that it would not be possible to live without the coal in the Kruger National Park but then suddenly we seemed to have found other resources so that we do not need that coal anymore. The point is that if we had gone ahead with mining coal in the Kruger National Park we would have had an ecological disaster on our hands, because that particular area of the Kruger National Park is unique. That particular area cannot be replaced because it is the meeting point of nine major African ecosystems. There are things there that are unique to Africa in the way of forests and woodlands. These things are not found anywhere else in Africa. The high mopani woodlands are found only there. In addition there are species of fish, frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals there which cannot be found anywhere else. So if we had actually allowed that mining to take place, it would have been a disaster. You see, Mr. Speaker, extinction takes place in nature, and we can never protect all species for ever and ever. But the interesting thing is that when extinction takes place in nature it is normally replaced by something more dynamic, something more vital, something better adapted to the environment. But where extinction takes place by man, all we leave is a void. At the moment little is known about how our natural systems operate, and I believe it is essential that we preserve it as a living laboratory from which we can learn to come to terms with the environment because, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot come to terms with our environment, how can we hope to come to terms with one another?

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the constructive comments made by the hon. member for Edenvale. One of the implications of this legislation would certainly be that more land would become available for national parks. This Bill will also give the National Parks Board more flixibility in their activities in that additional parks other than pristine national parks can also now be developed. Therefore a flexibility is now being built into the approach of the National Parks Board.

*The effect of the legislation under discussion will be that the National Parks Board will be given the powers to apply management and control in practice. This will give them a flexibility of action so that they can negotiate with neighbouring land owners in accordance with normal contractual principles. In this way national parks can be enlarged without a great deal of capital expenditure necessarily being incurred. One case in which this concept can be applied very fruitfully—and I want to suggest this to the hon. the Minister—is that of the Addo Elephant Park, near Port Elizabeth. Last year the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made a very well-argued appeal here for that national park to be enlarged. I should like to support him in this. In this case there are approximately ten land-owners who own land in an area which could possibly afford access to and form a link between the present national park and the Suurberg Forest Reserve. If such a link could be achieved, this would have major cost-saving implications for the National Parks Board. The area I am now referring to covers approximately 45 000 ha. I therefore sincerely hope that in view of the measures now being placed at his disposal, the hon. the Minister will give this matter priority, for other very practical reasons as well.

The Addo Elephant Park is already an internationally recognized park. It is situated close to Port Elizabeth and offers excellent facilities for tourists. The park is also easily accessible to reach by air and sea. This will also be meeting an urgent need, and at the same time a conservation problem will be solved, because it will give sanctuary to the elephants in that national park. There are already too many elephants for the available space in the park. The same also applies to the buffaloes and the mountain zebras.

Buffaloes?

Yes. That hon. member just happens to be one of the buffaloes we shall be able to give sanctuary there. [Interjections.] At the same time we shall be able to put a stop to the deterioration of the flora in that area.

Order! Did the hon. member for Uitenhage say that the hon. member for Langlaagte is a buffalo that must be given sanctuary?

Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw that statement.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

We shall also be able to check the deterioration of the flora in the park which is occurring now due to over-grazing. With the power now being vested in the hon. the Minister, after obtaining the forest area he will be able to negotiate with the owners of the corridor with a view to linking the present national park with this area I have just referred to. Then the Eastern Province will have a national park of real stature, and this, of course, will be a major boost for the tourist industry in the Eastern Cape.

In order to eliminate every possible misunderstanding, I just want to point out that landowners adjoining the forest reserve area can in future be involved by way of negotiation. For this reason I just want it placed on record that for the past eight years I have in fact had a share in a piece of land bordering on the forest reserve.

The amendment embodied in clause 8 is a tremendous step forward in the direction of the rationalization of matters within the administration of the National Parks Board. Everything points to the hon. the Deputy Minister, together with the hon. the Minister, intending to extend the seaward boundary of the Tsitsikamma National Park and thereby establishing a full-fledged marine park there too. The park and the lakes area can therefore now be managed as a unit, which is both logical and practical. This step, the result of this legislation, will also, of course, put an end to fragmentary control in that area. Of course this also strengthens the cause of decentralization at the operating level. In my opinion effective managment now requires an administration centre for the National Parks Board’s southern parks, viz. the Addo Elephant Park, the Mountain Zebra Park, the Karoo Park, the Bontebok Park, and now also the Tsitsikamma Park and the Lakes area. These parks will only be able to come into their own if such a decision regarding decentralization is taken. It will then be possible to evaluate and deal with immediate regional requirements on the spot.

Last year I suggested that George seemed a very good choice. Now, with the inclusion of the Lakes area, we can definitely make good use of some of their buildings and other infrastructure for such a centre.

I personally believe that the most important amendment here is the amendment to section 30 of Act No. 57 of 1976. This amendment paves the way for the decision to extend the seaward boundary of the Tsitsikamma National Park by deleting the present restriction of 1,8 km. The Parks Board has addressed representations with regard to this extension, to extend the seaward boundary to five km, since 1977. This will mean that this beautiful park will in future be a full-fledged marine park in terms of international standards. I do not think anyone has worked harder for this than Dr. Robertson, the present head of the southern parks. I have also campaigned for this and I still feel that the park’s seaward boundary should be six miles seaward of the shore. I suspect that the hon. the Minister may initially consider three sea miles, but I feel that the eventual aim and endeavour should be six sea miles.

I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister for their extremely sympathetic approach to this major conservation effort. The hon. the Deputy Minister specially visited this area and the park to acquaint himself fully with circumstances there. Over the years the Fisheries Department has been strongly opposed to the idea of extending the seaward boundary. It is extremely encouraging that a change in their attitude can now be perceived. Perhaps this is due to the beneficial effect the new hon. Minister and hon. Deputy Minister have had on the department. In my opinion this decision is one of the most important conservation decisions in many years, and it will definitely do a great deal to enhance our country’s international prestige as far as conservation matters are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it would be superfluous to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his promotion at this juncture. However, that does not prevent me from congratulating the hon. the Minister on the first piece of legislation he has already virtually piloted through this Parliament so ably and with so much ease— one is tempted to say, with so much grace.

We have come to the Third Reading of this fine, important and, I feel, essential Bill. In considering its effect and application, I want to refer briefly to what I consider to be the crux of the legislation. Yesterday the hon. the Minister said, and quite rightly too, that only about 12% of South Africa’s agricultural land is high potential agricultural land. It is also general knowledge that South Africa is not really an agricultural country; it is rather an industrial and mining country. Having said this, I want to mention the exceptional achievements of the South African farmers and soil conservationists—and they are also the farmers—who are known for having made the Republic of South Africa the food larder of Africa. By saying this I am, by implication, trying to say how important the Bill is, because it provides that in future mining will only be undertaken in existing parks by way of exception, by way of necessity and when Parliament deems it necessary. It is only in such cases that Parliament will allow the Minister to give permission for mining to be undertaken in existing parks. Because our agricultural land is scarce, I foresee that in the future we shall not be able to use agricultural land for parks arbitrarily. This will be virtually impossible. That is why I consider the protection this legislation is going to afford to existing parks to be so essential, because the Bill provides that mining cannot be undertaken in the parks unless this is consented to by the Parliament.

For me as a farmer the Bill is like a double-barrel shotgun—it fires two shots. The second shot in the double-barrel shotgun is that whereas legislation at present provides that no mining may be undertaken in existing parks, this Bill provides that in exceptional cases the Minister can approach Parliament and Parliament can give its consent for mining to be undertaken. Why do I regard this as so important? Let us assume, as an extreme example, that rich oil reserves are discovered under the Kruger National Park and at some stage the oil supply to South Africa is totally cut off. In terms of existing legislation oil cannot be mined in the Kruger National Park. However, in terms of the legislation as it will read in the future, the Minister can approach this Parliament and by way of exception, this Parliament can consent to mining operations being undertaken.

That is why I take such pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill on behalf of hon. members on this side. We want to tell the hon. the Minister and his department that we hope and trust that in future they will be most successful in the implementation and handling of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting the Third Reading of this legislation, I want to say that one aspect has become very clear throughout this debate and that is the awareness that has been apparent on all sides of this House of the importance of our environment and the conservation of that environment. In this legislation we are witnessing a desirable concept which was given birth to by the commission of inquiry into environmental legislation. It became clear from this Report that there was a need to streamline many aspects of the functions of the National Parks Board and also to rationalize and eliminate as far as possible various aspects of duplication.

I think that one of the most important points that we must look at in the future is that, in terms of this legislation which is in its final stages, the National Parks Board will now be able to expand in areas which provide a greater diversification from what may be regarded as the conventional type of park or reserve. This country is blessed with a variety of ecosystems, and we now have a unique opportunity of exploiting these to a great extent. In the planning of future nature conservation areas, it is important to move away from a stereotyped style that exists in many of the present reserves.

In conclusion, therefore, I think we can say generally that this legislation has opened the door for the acquisition of land for incorporation into Parks Board areas which hitherto was not possible. Therefore, we are looking forward to an era of expansion which can only be of considerable benefit to the concept of conservation and in particular to the future growth of our national parks.

Mr. Speaker, there is unanimity on this legislation, for which one is grateful, because it is an important piece of legislation which we believe will be of great benefit to South Africa and its people in future. This amending Bill will result in certain lake areas being transferred to the National Parks Board. I should like to concentrate on this aspect and on the effects this legislation will have on it.

It is desirable for the lake areas as established by the Lake Areas Development Act of 1975 to be under the control of the National Parks Board. This is a further step towards the functional rationalization of the public sector. Both the Lake Areas Development Board and the National Parks Board seek to control, manage, preserve and develop God’s gift to mankind, viz. nature, which in itself is sufficient reason to combine the duties of these two bodies, to rationalize two bodies engaged in realizing the same objects in the same way. Lagoons, lakes and marshes and limited areas fed by tidal rivers are rare phenomena in the Republic. It is therefore of national importance that this extremely valuable heritage be preserved for posterity. It is necessary for affective steps to be taken by the Government, not only to preserve this heritage, but also to make provision for the orderly and co-ordinated development and utilization of South Africa’s lake areas because this also forms part of the conservation effort.

The meaningful utilization of tidal rivers, lagoons and marshes along the South African coastal area has been the subject of various investigations undertaken by the Subsidiary Commitee for Coastal Areas of the Planning Advisory Council to the hon. the Prime Minister. At present that committee is an advisory committee to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. Their investigations proved very clearly that the vast majority of aquatic areas along the South African coastline have reached an advanced stage of deterioration, mainly as a result—in the first place—of the silting up of lagoons, lakes and marshes and tidal rivers. It is interesting just to mention here that before there was control over the methods of dealing with silted up river estuaries, it frequently happened that conflicting interests led to two different bull-dozers working at a river estuary simultaneously. One was blocking and the other unblocking the estuary because people farming on the flood plains wanted that land drained of water, whereas other people with other interests wanted the water to remain there. [Interjections.] The judicious blocking and unblocking of these river estuaries is in fact a very important control measure when it comes to this kind of conservation of the lake areas. Incidental and unco-ordinated development around these water areas creates problems and has to be controlled. Pollution by waste products as a result of the erection of houses, hotels and the like is a problem at such lake areas. The injudicious utilization of aquatic surfaces and surrounding flood plains is also creating problems. The undesirable erection of structures, the uncontrolled siting of buildings, etc. is disrupting systems such as these.

One of the basic control problems lies in the multiple jurisdiction of various State departments. I have been told that there are no less than 26 Acts that have been established by at least 10 Government departments and statutory organizations to administer, govern or regulate these problems. This causes quite a number of problems, e.g. divergent policies, fragmented planning without the necessary ongoing consultation between the various bodies, divergent and inconsistent advice by departments to the various development organizations, etc. We found that as a result of all these problems it was necessary to establish the Lake Areas Development Board. The Government did this in terms of the Lake Areas Development Act which was passed by this House in 1975 and this made it possible to combine all these problems and place them under the thorough and consistent control of one body.

Since this Lake Areas Development Board is now transferring its functions to the Parks Board, it is my pleasant duty to thank these gentlemen, who wrestled with and overcame these problems and dealt with this matter until it could be taken over today by the Parks Board, most sincerely on behalf of this House and South Africa. I am thinking in particular of the first chairman, Mr. F. J. M. Botha, and his successor, Mr. G. A. Visser, who is the present chairman of the Lake Areas Development Board.

Since this board’s task is being taken over, we shall have an entirely new set-up under the control of the National Parks Board. What we have here is not merely a park surrounded by a fence with gates through which the public is allowed to enter the park to study wild animals or any other aspect of ecology. This is an area in which people live, in which there are hotels and in which people earn a living. People use the lakes for waterskiing, for motorboating and yachting, etc. It therefore also creates the infrastructure for a recreational area and a holiday resort which must attract tourists to South Africa. One therefore wants to ask that when this new kind of national park is taken over care will be taken to ensure that the interests of the people living there, will be fully and fairly protected; that decisions on domestic issues will not only be taken by the Parks Board, but that the local inhabitants will have a say and that there will be joint decision-making between them and the Parks Board.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the hon. members for this discussion. I want to reiterate that it was a very pleasant discussion. I share the view of the hon. member for Mooi River that hon. members of all parties clearly realise the importance of our environment. I think that that was clear throughout the discussion. I also share the sentiments of the hon. member for Edenvale about our endangered species. I want to pay tribute to all the people who are busy protecting ur endangered species—-and I refer not only to animal species, but also to our bird species and especially to our plant species. I think it is absolutely necessary that we should bear this in mind at all times.

*I should also like to thank the hon. member for Uitenhage. This hon. member made a major contribution with regard to the Tsitsikamma Marine Reserve. He also knows a great deal about it. If there has ever been a place where I have felt close to heaven, it was there. When one walks along the Otter Trail from Nature’s Valley through the beautiful surroundings to the Storms River, one feels that this is the closest one can get to one’s Creator.

The hon. member for Uitenhage undertook a very thorough study of the parks of America at his own expense, and I want to thank him for doing so. I think he acquired a great deal of knowledge in the process.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Meyerton for his contribution at a late stage of the debate. Once again this was a contribution which, as we could all see, came from the bottom of his heart and attested to his love of nature and the environment.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Swellendam for his contribution. As regards the matter of divided control, I want to tell him that a committee is being appointed by the Council for the Environment specifically in order to investigate this aspect of divided control along our coastline. We are going to try to place it under unified control, but one cannot rush into this matter. I am therefore pleased that the council for the Environment is investigating the matter.

I should like to return to the speeches made yesterday by the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Virginia. Their speeches confirmed the remark I made yesterday, namely that hon. members in this House have a wide knowledge of matters connected with our environment and our national parks. I am extremely grateful for this. I should like to take this opportunity to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister and I shall welcome a discussion of this kind during the discussion of our Vote. I think it will be a continuation of what we have achieved here today. Many thanks to all hon. members for the calm discussion we were able to have.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when Father Time interrupted proceedings last night and the House adjourned, I was exchanging a few words with the hon. member for Houghton. I was responding to her suggestion that the United Party’s demise was caused by a lack of rule of law or a lack of understanding of the rule of law—I think that was the terminology she used—by that party. I went on to say that I believe the PFP would tear its own heart out—I think before the end of this session—over its particular stand on security matters, on its softness on security matters in this country. That was a few hours ago. It is amazing that in this morning’s Press we already see reference to what I would call “fellow-travellers” of this party, the Black Sash, with one of its members for the provincial council in attendance …

Do not worry about that.

I will worry about it because I am worried about the security of my country. The Black Sash passed a motion saying there should be no conscription in South Africa.

The Black Sash has disowned us.

The motion went on to say that South Africa has no right in South West Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says the Black Sash has disowned the PFP. Let him answer this: Has the Black Sash disowned his party’s MPC for Cape Town Gardens? Now he sits on his little cheese world and cannot answer the question. In this morning’s Afrikaans Press a Mr. Spies, the candidate for that party in Waterkloof, says one must realize there is a difference between Houghton Progs and Pretoria Progs. There are Houghton Progs and Pretoria Progs. I know that Houghton Progs do not like roadblocks and I now want to know what Pretoria Progs say about roadblocks. I want to know what Pretoria Progs say about the security of the State. That is what I am interested to hear.

I said last evening, and I say again, that there is no way that the police can establish a reasonable suspicion in respect of a vehicle. The police can establish a reasonable suspicion in respect of a particular area or a particlar point through which vehicles are passing and in order to be effective …

[Inaudible.]

Helen, keep quiet. I sat quietly while you chirruped yesterday; now you sit quietly.

Kept quiet?

I did. While you talked I sat quietly. We believe the police have got to search vehicles. There is just no other way that they can deal with the situation. However, I do want to take issue with the hon. the Minister on a point that arises out of recent tragic incidents. I believe that the police and their vehicles in setting up these roadblocks, provision for which is made in this Bill, must always be clearly identified. I think they must be seen to be what they are, i.e. roadblocks set up by the S.A. Police and then there can be no doubt in anybody’s mind, because if roadblocks are set up by the police using unmarked cars and people in plain clothes we are going to have tragedy all over again. I do not think there is any South African who will stop for a person in an unmarked car, even if it is surrounded by a battery of lights, if that person is in plain clothes. I would not. It is worth more than my life is worth to do that. In the same way, if I was chased by people in an unmarked car wearing mufti or civilian clothes, I too would run for my life as I believe somebody did recently. So I believe that the police must always do what they do at Acacia Park when I drive through every night when I leave this Place.

You mean at “Fort Vrees”?

What happens there is that one drives up to that gate and a policeman comes out and as he is wearing reflective material, he is clearly identifiable as a member of the S.A. Police. He does not have to tell you; your head-lamps tell you because it is clearly emblazoned across his chest. As I say, he wears the chevron design which clearly shows up and he has SAP written across his chest, so one knows exactly who he is and why he is there. I believe that people will then stop and submit themselves to whatever these frightful indignities are that the PFP seem to make such a noise about.

I want to say again that I do not believe that any citizen will object to having his vehicle searched if he has nothing to hide and I do not honestly believe that there is anything sinister in this provision at all. However, I do want to stress that when it comes to the individual, if these powers are sought in respect of the individual, then that would be an entirely different story. We in the NRP support the concept of the right of the police to search vehicles—and I underline the word vehicles—at a properly constructed roadblock in order to circumvent the possible crime of the smuggling of drugs, the smuggling of arms or whatever it may be that could affect the stability, the security and the safety of our State.

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100% with what the hon. member for Umhlanga said about the PFP being soft on security matters. However, I shall refer to that again in due course.

As regards the question of the identification of police officers and other officers at road blocks, I believe that the hon. member made a good suggestion. As far as I know, it has always been the procedure that the police have identified themselves as clearly as possible at such road blocks. I agree with the hon. member that what we experience at Acacia Park is an outstanding example of this. Therefore I do not wish to argue with the hon. member for Umhlanga today. [Interjections.]

However, as far as the PFP is concerned, I wish to state very, very clearly that there is no doubt that those hon. members take sides with the enemies of South Africa.

We are doing what?

They take sides with the enemies of South Africa. I say that quite bluntly. Hon. members of the PFP take sides with the ANC …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Roodepoort not imputing disloyalty to hon. members of the PFP by saying that we choose the side of the enemies of South Africa?

Order! What did the hon. member for Roodepoort mean by what he has just said?

Mr. Speaker, I shall define what I mean.

Order! Did the hon. member for Roodepoort cast a reflection on hon. members of the official Opposition or not?

No, Mr. Speaker. I did cast a reflection on their bedfellows, on their friends, but not on hon. members of the PFP.

You are casting a reflection by way of innuendo.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an article in this morning’s Die Burger. I feel that it would be very useful to refer to this in order to expose the whole modus vivendi of the PFP, their approach to principles such as patriotism, stability and the combating of crime, and the S.A. Police and the S.A. Defence Force. It can only show up their attitude to those organizations even more clearly. I wish to state clearly that I associate myself entirely with the statements made in this article in Die Burger. This article refers to the leftist heart, the leftist radical circles, and also expresses itself in very strong terms in respect of what the Black Sash have done, and in respect of the hiding places of the ANC in Maseru and the raid carried out on them there. The article also refers to the efforts of the PFP to condone that raid. I do not believe we need have any doubt about the loyalties of the PFP, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Wynberg tried to identify himself with that raid and with the actions of the Defence Force. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a feeble effort to dissociate himself from his party’s spokesman on defence in this regard. In addition, Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Could I ask your ruling on whether the Maseru raid has anything to do with the Bill now under discussion?

Order! I think the hon. member for Roodepoort is using that merely to explain the point he is trying to make.

Mr. Speaker, this particular newspaper article also mentions that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition struggled to dissociate himself to some extent from the standpoint of the hon. member for Wynberg. It is mentioned that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made no mention in his statement of the need for the attack, but only expressed criticism of the Defence Force and the Government. The approach of the PFP to this particular legislation also is typical of their approach to the actions of the Defence Force. Accordingly I really wonder whether what is said in this article is indeed so far removed from reality, particularly when one of their hon. members—as the hon. member for Umhlanga also clearly stated—associates himself wholeheartedly with the Black Sash with regard to matters such as, e.g., the actions of Swapo in Angola, and organizations hostile to South Africa. One wonders where hon. members of the PFP really stand. I believe that the hon. member for Yeoville agrees that its heart beats very weakly as far as patriotism is concerned, and that he will have to establish exactly where he stands in that party as well.

I believe that in the coming by-election in Waterkloof, hon. members of the PFP will have to take full cognizance of the fact that they are going to suffer a thrashing due to their actions and their lack of real patriotism, which is something one would expect of them. I say with all respect that these people are not interested in the combating of crime.

That is absolutely untrue.

Let us consider the speech of the hon. member for Houghton for a moment. The hon. the Minister quoted certain statistics relating to road blocks, and the indications are that the success of the police in setting up road blocks is such that approximately 14% of those vehicles that are stopped are indeed involved in some form of crime. If those road blocks had not been there, I believe that that number of criminals would not have been rounded up. With respect, I wish to suggest that a true reasonable suspicion would not have occurred in respect of 14% of those 4 000 cases in which arrests took place. In my opinion, those hon. members are not interested in the real combating of crime. In her speech the hon. member for Houghton gave us a certain definition. She referred to the issue of accountability, a statutory accountability which, in terms of this definition of hers, which supposedly appears in this legislation, does not hold water at all as far as the present legal system is concerned. I find this shocking, She says that—

Surely that is the greatest untruth uttered in this House. How can the police not be held accountable for any action during roadblocks? This really is not true. If a police officer at a roadblock were to commit a murder, steal something from a vehicle, be guilty of assault or any action in conflict with the provisions of section 5 of the Police Act, then such a police officer could be charged in terms of the laws of this country. Therefore the statement of the hon. member for Houghton to the effect that the police will not be accountable for any actions performed during searches or at roadblocks, is a gross irregularity and really very wide of the mark.

She is content to state these half-truths for the world to hear, and she does not care where they are published. By using that kind of argument, the hon. members in that party are associating themselves with the enemies of South Africa. They are really not at all interested in the implementation of the law. It is essential for the due implementation of the law and the execution of the task of the police that it should be possible to search vehicles outside the area 10 km extending from the border as well, and, in the difficult times in which we are living, to confiscate arms, dagga, drugs and similar items. It is impossible for any police officer to have psychic contact with a specific approaching vehicle so as to develop a reasonable suspicion in this regard.

I have no hesitation whatsowever in supporting this legislation. In conclusion, I just wish to refer to the closing words of the hon. member for Houghton. She said that that party was impervious as far as these cases are concerned and regards “this cry of total onslaught” and “lacking patriotism”. They are impervious to that. Once again, according to them, the total onslaught on South Africa does not exist. The real need for a dragnet which is necessary in order to avert effectively the entry into the country of arms, drugs, etc. is something they fail to understand, and they do not support such security action. The longer that party attacks this kind of legislation with statements of that nature, the longer they will be shown up in the politics of this country as a party that cannot be supported and trusted by the electorate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton has often in the past been called upon by the PFP to save poor innings on a sticky wicket. Yesterday was such an occasion. Unfortunately, however, she failed dismally. The hon. member completely missed the boat. I do not think that she really knows what it is all about.

*However, I must say that it was really a pleasant change to listen to the hon. member again as a spokesman on law and order. I should appreciate it a great deal if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were rather to make her the leader of the team on his side instead of certain hon. members that he has in that team.

I agree with that.

The hon. member said yesterday when she referred to the hon. member for Krugersdorp that he actually gave the real reason for this Bill before the House; not the reason that I gave, but the reason that the hon. member gave. When she said what the real reason was she quoted the hon. member for Krugersdorp and now I quote the unrevised Hansard of the hon. member for Houghton—

The hon. member also said that she had read my Second Reading speech—well, that is exactly what I said. I want to quote from my Second Reading speech—

*I singled this out at the outset of the Second Reading debate as the reason why we had come to this House—to ensure that our actions were based on a firm legal foundation.

† The hon. member also asked me if I could tell the House whether any people were shot or wounded at road blocks or during searches, whether any people attempted to evade arrest after their cars had been stopped and whether people without valid passes had tried to escape arrest and were in any way injured by the police during such action. I have ascertained from the Commissioner that from January 1982 to date the police fired on eight occasions on vehicles which did not stop, that three persons were fatally injured and that four were injured because of these incidents. When one considers, however, that during last year 28 980 road blocks were set up, one realizes that the incidents numbered only a few. It nevertheless remains regrettable.

*It is cause for gratitude that there have only been a very small number of incidents, if one compares that number with the large number of roadblocks and the large number of people involved.

† Then the hon. member tried her hand at law and the interpretation of it. She said—

Quite correct.

Where in the Bill does the hon. member find that the police will not be accountable for their actions? The hon. Chief Whip seemed to agree with the hon. member for Houghton and he is the senior legal partner of the hon. member. Can they tell me where that appears in the Bill?

What you have omitted from the Bill is what counts.

I am asking the hon. member where in the Bill does she find that the police will not be accountable for their actions at road blocks. [Interjections.] In the Bill before the House no accountability of the police is removed. I am merely asking the hon. member because she, and the hon. Chief Whip of the party, know very well that there is not one word of it in the Bill.

I do not agree with you.

Reference is made in the Bill to section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This is the section containing the provision which the hon. members of the official Opposition support very strongly, namely, that relating to reasonable grounds. What does section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act provide? I quote—

I stress “reasonable ground”—

1. (b) which may afford evidence of the commission or suspected commission of an offence, whether within the Republic or elsewhere; or
2. (c) which is intended to be used or is on reasonable grounds believed to be intended to be used in the commission of an offence.

Section 20 is also confirmed in the Bill before this House.

But it is not.

In other words, it is quite out of the question that … [Interjections.] … any form of “accountability” is being removed.

But you are quite wrong. You do not know the law yourself.

I should just like to confirm this aspect. [Interjections.] I can also refer the hon. member to the prelude to this legislation … [Interjections.] … and the hon. member was present at all times in this House when this amendment was originally included in the legislation in 1965. I refer hon. members to Hansard, 7 June 1965, column 7296. The hon. member was in this House at the time and was already a member of that party. The then hon. Minister of Justice said the following during the Second Reading debate—

[Interjections.] Basically that is the same provision. The hon. the Minister went on to give the reason for this clause—

With accountability too.

Yes. Even in that regard there was no mention of what the hon. member is contending today. All parties in this House support this approach. The then official Opposition, the old United Party, confirmed this through its hon. chief spokesman, Mr. Cadman. I looked for the name of the hon. member for Houghton here, because, as a very reliable hon. member, she must surely have been in this House. I will not be persuaded that she would be absent when such an important Bill was being discussed in this House.

Well, maybe I was sick, eh?

That will be the day! [Interjections.] The hon. member is the healthiest member in this House. [Interjections.] In any event, the fact of the matter is that all the parties in this House supported that Bill and the reason for the Bill. [Interjections.] Of course, the principle is exactly the same now.

[Inaudible.]

Let us now refer to 1979, and I have already referred to this. In 1979 the then hon. Minister expressly repeated that clause 2—this embodies the amendment of the distance to 10 kilometres—envisages exactly the same as was envisaged in 1965.

Only the distance is extended.

Yes, only the distance is extended. There is no other change. At that point the hon. member personally supported it in this House.

Yes, but that was in respect of the border areas.

In the same way, other members of other parties also supported it. On two occasions the hon. member supported exactly the same wording and the same principle.

It was for a different area entirely.

Order! If the hon. member for Houghton wants to disagree with the hon. the Minister, I think she must do so in a quiet manner by keeping her lips pressed closely together. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Now one asks oneself: Why this change in standpoint now? As I said, we have no change in principle here.

We have.

We do not have a change in the reason for this. It is merely a question of the distance being extended. It was first extended from the customs office to one mile this side of the South African border. That, according to the hon. member, is well and good. Then, in 1979, the Government came to Parliament and said it wanted to extend the distance from one mile to 10 km into South Africa.

That was reasonable.

The hon. member says that that is in order. Now we say that for precisely the same reasons, we want to extend to 10 km to Pretoria, but now the hon. member is against it. How many of us in this House have not on occasion asked ourselves in despair: “The man who is able to fathom the mind and spirit of a woman has still to be born”? I honestly cannot. I cannot understand why the hon. member is now objecting to exactly the same thing that she was previously in favour of.

The border area is a quasi-military area, which is something the whole country is not.

The hon. member and her party face one with a question that one has to state or ask oneself repeatedly in this House, viz.: Why? I have no difficulty saying why; moreover, I tried to tell this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, either in the Second Reading debate or in the Committee Stage. That is to say, I have come to the conclusion, as many of us have done for some time, that certain elements in the official Opposition—not the whole official Opposition, because I will not be persuaded that that is the standpoint of the whole official Opposition or of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—for reasons of which I am unaware and which, moreover, were not revealed here, are opposed to such a provision. What we are trying to do here is combat crime. Surely the hon. members cannot be opposed to that. As far back as 1965 we said that we foresaw problems with regard to terrorist expansion in South Africa. In 1979 we said that we had problems in that regard.

You have not been very successful in that regard.

I could tell the hon. member why we are not so successful in certain respects, but then I would be ruled out of order. This year we say that we need this authorization for special reasons as far as the extension is concerned.

Next year it will be for persons.

Why do the few hon. members in the official Opposition who are opposed to this, want to make matters difficult for the police? They must reply to us.

The police have always done without this.

The hon. members might as well tell the country why they want to do this. They have been prepared to cooperate all along, they have said all along that they want to make it possible for the police, and the accountability of the police for their actions is not being removed either. If they act unlawfully at a roadblock, then they are accountable. None of those things in respect of which the police are accountable, are being removed in terms of this Bill, but that is the hon. member’s main argument. She says: “The accountability of the police is being done away with here and that is why I object to it.”

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? He expresses it as his conviction that as regards police action accountability remains. If under this provision a policeman regularly searches the car of an individual he cannot get along with and, in other words, harasses him by means of those searches, in what way is he accountable for his actions? In what way can the victim, the owner of the car, get redress through the courts if the policeman is entitled to search that car anywhere at any stage on a public road?

I have emphasized over and over again that the accountability of policemen at such a roadblock is not affected by the Bill.

Answer the question.

As regards the rest of the advice which the hon. member requires from me, he can consult his legal adviser. [Interjections.]

There is no accountability.

I should like to single out certain other aspects which have been highlighted and reply to them. Throughout the debate, particularly with a view to the future implementation of the legislation, the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members have had a great deal to say about the issue of reasonable grounds. Various hon. members have pointed out that it is almost impossible to have reasonable grounds or a reasonable suspicion in all cases where it is necessary to implement this legislation. Specifically in view of the practical nature of this matter, no provision for reasonable grounds has been made since 1965.

When, on the first day of the debate, I asked the hon. member for Durban Central to quote any authority to support the standpoint he had adopted, I could see on his face that he had no authority. I therefore pulled his leg. However, when he quoted an authority in the House the following day I did not make disparaging reference to it. The hon. member need only go and read my Second Reading speech. I told him that although I respected his authority, the fact of the matter was that we had a South African problem that we have to deal with accordding to our own judgment. I respect the good judgment that may prevail in the United Kingdom, but we are here attempting to deal with a unique problem in accordance with our own good judgment. I repeat that to determine reasonable grounds in all instances under the circumstances that we have sketched here, is virtually impossible. For that very reason, and because this legal issue has been raised consistently over the past number of years, it was decided to ask the law advisers to advise us in this regard. Problems can arise with regard to the concept of reasonable grounds in assessing certain actions, and accordingly we must now place beyond all doubt what is at issue here. The Government states clearly that we cannot deal with a situation such as this with the limiting factor of reasonable grounds in each case. However, the qualification is that this does not mean that the accountability of the State for any unlawful action is being reduced in any respect. I really think that the hon. member for Houghton should get herself another legal adviser, because the one who is advising her at present is not giving her …

I have consulted a judge and a senior advocate.

That, then, is the basic reason for this legislation.

I should like to tell the official Opposition that I find it strange that when it suits them they are very quick to speak of the law societies of South Africa. When it suits them, and others too, they are quick to hide behind the law societies. Sir, I am very proud of the law societies of South Africa. Indeed, I myself am a member of one of these societies. In the Argus of 8 February the Association of Law Societies is described as “a non-political body with impeccable credentials, a body which has specialized knowledge of the enforcement of law and regulations and of interrogation”.

The president of the Association of Law Societies, with its “impeccable credentials”, has paid a personal call on me and told me that the association gives this legislation its unqualified support. I take it the official Opposition has as much respect for the law societies of South Africa as I do. The Association of Law Societies, with its “impeccable credentials”, has now come forward and told me personally and by way of correspondence that they support the legislation in all respects. This is yet another reason, Mr. Speaker, why I have no hesitation in approaching you and asking you to allow this legislation to be passed by this House.

In this regard I should also like to refer to certain other matters. They are matters that have either been raised by hon. members or, over the past week to 10 days, have formed part of a very serious debate that has been conducted in South Africa and which, in the nature of the matter, has also enjoyed the earnest attention of the Government and that of the Commissioner of Police. It is extremely relevant to the legislation we are discussing now.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? There has been a great deal of debate with regard to this Bill in the context of a formal roadblock. Do the provisions of this Bill give any policeman the power to search a vehicle anywhere else than at a formal roadblock? He is walking down the road, for instance, and sees a motor-car. Can he by himself and on his own initiative, search that motor-car?

I think we must seek the reply in section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977. I have only the Afrikaans text with me, and accordingly I shall reply to the hon. member in Afrikaans. The “circumstances in which article may be seized without search warrant” are the following, in terms of section 22—

1. (a) if the person concerned consents to the search for and the seizure of the article in question, or if the person who may consent to the search of the container or premises consents to such search and the seizure of the article in question; or
2. (b) if he on reasonable grounds believes—

That is to say, the police officer—

1. (i) that a search warrant will be issued to him under paragraph (a) of section 21(1) if he applies for such warrant; and
2. (ii) that the delay in obtaining such warrant would defeat the object of the search.

Therefore, as I see the matter, section 22 applies to the actions of police when searching vehicles under given circumstances, as does the section which is now to be inserted in the Act by way of this Bill. That is how I should like to reply to the hon. member’s question.

Due to the diversity of the activities of the S.A. Police it is inevitable that certain branches of the Force have to perform their duties in civilian dress and in unidentified vehicles. It is understandable that a degree of confusion and uncertainty may prevail among the public when they are stopped by such members of the Police Force, in the sense that without identification they do not always know whether they should come to a halt or get away. In particular, the tragic incident which took place recently casts light on this problem area in the activities of the Police. After consultation with the Commissioner of Police, I have decided—and I should like to announce this here today— that immediate steps will be taken to equip all police vehicles used on executive services with a mark of identification, a flashing light or apparatus of that nature. At this stage it is not possible to describe the equipment precisely, since certain aspects of its practical utilization require further investigation. However, steps will be taken to notify the public of details of the equipment as soon as finality has been reached.

Moreover, I should like to confirm once again that as far as the use of firearms by members of the Police Force is concerned, the statutory provisions and all other provisions and directives in that regard have been brought once again to the attention of each member of the Police Force and this will, moreover, be repeated on every possible occasion.

In conclusion, I just wish to say that I really think it is tragic that we in this House should have the situation that all representatives of the electorate in this House, except hon. members of the official Opposition, agree on the provisions of this legislation that we request this House to accept; that all responsible people, including the most senior association of lawyers in South Africa—the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa—support this legislation in every respect, whereas the PFP opposes it. Therefore we have the support of that respected organization of lawyers, too. However, the official Opposition of this country states in this House that on the basis of reasons advanced by them, they are not prepared in these circumstances to enable the S.A. Police to combat crime and fight every form of terrorist activity in our country. I think that is tragic, and I also believe that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition, as he sits there now, is bitterly regretting that this matter is going to be cast in his teeth and in the teeth of his party. However, the electorate of South Africa must know this; they will know it, too.

[Inaudible.]

In particular, the hon. member for Houghton, who has so much so say now, will in future bitterly regret the attitude her party has adopted in this House with regard to this important matter.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Chairman, we are now in the Committee Stage of a Bill which contains a number of schedules. It is hardly appropriate to debate the schedules at this stage, and therefore I merely stand up to say that we shall note our objections to the clauses as they are but while we shall continue the debate on the principles, as well as on some of the matters which the hon. the Deputy Minister has raised, during the Third Reading.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, the CP does not support clause 2, since it deals with the area known as Kutama and Senthimula, and because this House previously approved its being excised from the Venda area and compensatory land being purchased in its place.

In the debate thus far, apart from one meagre little argument which he raised, the hon. the Deputy Minister has furnished no proof as to why the clause should be agreed to and the area should remain where it is. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that the area should be excised. In 1973 Parliament approved the excision of Kutama and Senthimula from the Venda area and the substitution of other land in its place. Besides, that decision was preceded by an in-depth investigation by the Commission for Co-operation an Development. More proposals were submitted to Parliament in 1975 and those proposals were also preceded by an investigation which took the previous recommendations of the commission and the decision of Parliament into consideration. We then had a second investigation by the commission. In 1979 an international agreement was concluded with Venda to the effect that this area would not remain incorporated in Venda. This was also approved by Parliament. After 1979, and before August 1981, the Commission for Cooperation and Development produced a further three reports. This was done under the chairman at that time, the present Deputy Minister. In all three those reports the commission recommended that Senthimula and Kutama should become a White area.

They gave reasons as to why this should be the case. The reason was that by replacing Senthimula and Kutama with other land, Venda could be consolidated into one geographic unit and, after all, this has been the ideal. Their finding was that if the exchange should take place and the compensatory land were to be added, Venda would have a rail link, since the land which was being added adjoined the railway line. Venda would then have a rail link, something which would be a tremendous asset and which would be to the advantage of its economic development as well as to its citizens who did not live in Venda, but who worked elsewhere in the RSA and who could then make use of the rail link. Moreover, the commission’s finding was that the compensatory land had already been planned agriculturally, and that the removal of people had already begun—everything was going according to plan and this was in the interests of Venda. It is also in the interests of South Africa that this proposal be implemented in its present form.

In October 1981, the hon. the Minister assembled the Northern Transvaal farmers affected by this in Pretoria. They discussed the consolidation plans. On that occasion the then chairman said that over his dead body would the area remain where it was. I must say the frail little body of the hon. the Deputy Minister does not seem to me to be showing any signs of death today; he still looks healthy. [Interjections.] Therefore the position is that we have five investigations and one international contract as evidence to confirm that the exchange should in fact take place because it is in the interests of both States and in the interests of the citizens of Venda. Then suddenly, on 7 July, the hon. the Minister of Manpower announced that the final borders of Venda had been decided and that Senthimula and Kutama would remain where they were and would no longer be moved. No farmer or interested party had been consulted. As far back as October 1981 they had been told that this would not happen, and then suddenly the announcement came: This is the final consolidation. The following day President Mphephu reacted by saying that this had not been negotiated with him. He also said that when the hon. the Minister of Manpower had visited him in his office, they had not spoken about these matters, but about matters other than those the hon. the Minister had announced.

I did negotiate with him, under the instruction of the Cabinet.

I am simply stating the facts as we have them before us. Does the hon. the Minister wish to deny that the hon. the Minister of Manpower made an announcement on 7 July? [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Minister wish to deny that? [Interjections.] The Venda Government said that no final agreement had been concluded with them. On the 19th of that same month the chairman of the commission, who is now the hon. the Deputy Minister, said that the Cabinet had not yet decided on these matters. He said that he did not know whether they would decide that day. The Cabinet had not yet decided, but on the 7th the hon. the Minister had already made final announcements. I wish to put a specific question to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and this is a question to which I should like a reply. When did the Cabinet decide on these matters? [Interjections.] When, in fact, did the Cabinet decide? By 19 July 1982 the Cabinet had not yet made a decision. I wish to put a further question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Who took the initiative, because President Mphephu said that the hon. the Minister of Manpower had paid him a visit? Is it not the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information or the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs who have to do that work? What has the hon. the Minister of Manpower to do with Venda when it comes to land affairs between South Africa and Venda? Therefore I am putting this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: When did the Cabinet decide and who took the initiative?

After the report had been received.

But who took the initiative on the part of the Whites? I maintain that it was the hon. the Minister of Manpower, and no one who was involved in this matter asked for this to be done. Therefore I ask: Who took the initiative? My colleague indicated that people are no longer being consulted, but I wish to put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is it Government policy that the Minister involved—the hon. the Deputy should listen now, since he has to reply—no longer makes announcements, but that the MP makes the announcement? If consolidation were to take place in the constituencies of hon. members in that party, is it going to become customary for them, and not the hon. the Minister, to make the announcement? Are military aircraft going to be made available to them as well, so that the Press may be invited to observe this important announcement? [Interjections.] Could the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me whether it is the policy, this change which has now taken place?

You have become a little man, Ferdi. You have not always been one.

That hon. member said that I had become a little man… [Interjections.] I wish to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that in my constituency there is also land involved in consolidation. Will they also make it possible for me …

Have you also carried out inspections?

Of course, I know all those areas. I made the announcement and I invited the MP to come. However, I did not ask the MP to go and make the announcement in a constituency. I went to do so myself. This has always been the premise. What does one do with an hon. Minister who makes decisions, but who does not go and visit the people? He sends the MP. Are they also going to give other MPs and us the right to announce Government undertakings anywhere in South Africa, for example, the large development point at Alldays, which later proved to be still-born? That was also announced on behalf of that Minister. Is it true that MPs will be able to announce this kind of thing in the future?

I conclude by saying that we do not support this clause, since it is not in the interests of South Africa. Nor is it in the interests of Venda. It is beneficial to the development of Venda that that area be consolidated in one piece, and it is possible to do so. All the evidence, all the investigations, have indicated that that should be the case and that it would be conducive to the economic development as well as convenient for the inhabitants if Venda were consolidated as was previously proposed.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the situation in Kutama and Senthimula is concerned, it is true that the historical course of events was as the hon. member for Lichtenburg indicated. I cannot say precisely on what date the Cabinet adopted a final standpoint on Kutama and Senthimula. However, it is obvious that it must have been before 7 July.

No, it is not obvious.

The hon. the Minister of Manpower would not have made an announcement on Kutama and Senthimula on 7 July if the Cabinet had not already made a decision. I am, in fact, aware that the Minister of Manpower and the then Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs had spoken to President Mphephu about the consolidation of Venda, that the negotiations at that level had been continued, that the matter had been before the Cabinet and that the Cabinet had decided that Kutama and Senthimula would not be removed and that an announcement to that effect would be made. It is no use those hon. members trying to give the country the impression that the commission will no longer hear evidence at such investigations. In fact the contrary is being proved. Tomorrow the commission is going to hear evidence on the consolidation of KwaNdebele. On the basis of information at its disposal, the Cabinet was of the opinion that it could settle the matter concerning Kutama, Senthimula and Venda and that an announcement could be made without other investigations having to be done in this regard. That is the factual situation. My information is that the Agricultural Union was also consulted.

By whom?

By the Minister of Manpower. [Interjections.] It was also reported that the Minister of Manpower had consulted the agricultrual union concerned in connection with this matter.

Is that the MP’s work?

It is of no consequence if those hon. members wish to derive a little pleasure from this. The fact remains that Kutama and Senthimula are no longer part of South Africa, but are becoming part of Venda in terms of this Bill.

It is easy for the hon. member to come and say to me that I myself was chairman of a commission which recommended that Kutama and Senthimula should remain, but he was also chairman of a commission, a commission which recommended that Nsikazi should become a White area.

May I tell you why?

I can tell you why I recommended that Kutama and Senthimula should become a White area. However, I think it is disgraceful to come and point a finger at me in this way. The fact is that the entire Cabinet decided not to make Kutama and Senthimula a White area again. However, that hon. member and Dr. Connie Mulder made Nsikazi a White area of their own accord and before the Cabinet knew about it, the Commissioner General, Mr. George Botha, already knew about it and the people at Nsikazi had already begun to light their fires and celebrate. [Interjections.]

But surely we consulted the people.

Now the hon. member is trying to convince me. If the Cabinet takes a decision, I carry it out. That is why I am carrying out this decision today, although I did not agree with it when I was chairman of the commission. This is not relevant, since we have the legislation before us today.

The question is what is right? [Interjections.]

The fact is that a decision was taken and we are no longer going to make Kutama and Senthimula a White area. If one thinks of the costs we are saving in this regard, we in South Africa will still be grateful for this. And those hon. members need not try and drive a wedge between the hon. the Minister of Manpower and me in this cheap manner.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate we tried in vain to get the Minister to furnish a reason for that area no longer being declared a White area This afternoon there has been a further attempt to get the hon. the Minister to furnish a reason as to why that area should not be declared a White area. However, the only reason we have been given, is that the Cabinet has decided it should not. We have all the evidence that on five occasions competent people—I regard the hon. the Deputy Minister as being a competent person— made recommendations in respect of that particular area and on each occasion the recommendation was that that area should become a White area. However, in spite of that, we are now being told that because the omniscient Cabinet decided that the area would no longer become a White area, it is suddenly right that it should not. All the local evidence and all the investigations which were carried out indicated that it would be in the interests of South Africa, as well as of Venda, for the area to be declared a White area. In fact, compensatory land had already been purchased for this purpose. Really, Sir, to come to this highest Council Chamber in the country and to submit as the only justification that the omniscient Cabinet decided to do so, is just not good enough. The hon. the Deputy Minister must convince us that he and his commission made a mistake in their recommendations. Suddenly a particular consideration has occurred to the Cabinet as to why the area should no longer become a White area. However, to come and tell us that because the omniscient Cabinet decided it was the right thing to do, simply does not hold good.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. members are correct in saying that I gave no reason as to why Kutama and Senthimula are no longer to become a White area. I wish to point out to this House that when the first decision on Kutama and Senthimula was taken in 1973—it is a piece of land less than 20 000 ha in extent—there were fewer than 7 000 people in that area. When the first decision to remove Kutama and Senthimula was taken, Dr. Phatudi’s people were moved between 1973 and 1975. Those people were moved. 1975 came and went with consolidation proposals which confirmed that Kutama and Senthimula were to become a White area. At that stage there were already 15 000 people in that area. Today, however, there are more than 25 000 people in the area and it would cost us more than R30 million to move them from Kutama and Senthimula over a distance of barely 15 km as the crow flies. If there is one reason which could be advanced, it is the cost of the removal.

Did the commission not take this into account?

The commission did, in fact, take this into account. However, in the interim, the Cabinet made certain decisions. Surely it ought to be clear to hon. members that the Cabinet cannot undertake large-scale removals when there are unnecessary expenses involved.

The Cabinet no longer wishes to carry out this policy.

No. The Cabinet simply decided that the removals were no longer going to take place. Those hon. members are also aware that the Cabinet has come forward with a brand new plan for regional economic development, in terms of which the removal of people as such is no longer so essential, and the hon. member for Lichtenburg and the former hon. member for Waterberg were members of the Cabinet when these decisions were made.

Do not hide behind them.

I am not hiding behind them. Those hon. members opposite have always propagated economic deconcentration, but now that the Government has come forward with a policy to promote this actively, those hon. members are suddenly no longer happy about it. The fact of the matter is that the removal of certain Black spots is related to the policy of economic deconcentration of the Government, the establishment of growth points and everything connected with this.

I have now given hon. members two reasons in the process. It really does not make sense in terms of the entire process to move people only a little way from where they are now. To say that the only reason I can advance is the fact that the Cabinet decided in its wisdom that the inhabitants of Kutama and Senthimula should not move, is really not a valid argument in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has just advanced a further argument, viz. economic deconcentration and regional development. Now I wish to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the step they are taking here is in fact adversely affecting the economic development of Venda, it is directly affecting it in an adverse way. This area is an unfavourably situated one, of which the commission itself said that there was no chance of its being included in Venda. In other words, it is out of the way. It is situated far from Venda. Moreover, if this area is exchanged for the land which has already been purchased and planned, Venda will have a rail link connecting it to the rest of the world. This is something it does not have at present. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot tell me that this is not in the interests of Venda’s economic development. It is indeed in its interests. Surely regional development is not there to benefit a certain group only. Surely it is there to promote the policy of separate development of the Black States and to strengthen those States economically. In taking this step, the hon. the Deputy Minister is acting contrary to this. He is not going to promote economic regional development in such a way that Venda also benefits. However, this is not all. The hon. the Deputy Minister said it was going to cost R30 million. I say that that figure given by the hon. the Deputy Minister was sheer conjecture.

The commission confirmed it.

Yes, the commission made an estimate and said in 1981 that it would cost R12 million. They made a scientific estimate in 1981, 19 months ago. Costs have not risen to that extent. Nor have so many additional people moved into that area. The number of people mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister were there in 1981 already. In 1980 the commission estimated that it would cost R10 million. Between 1980 and 1981 the amount increased by R2 million. However, since the end of 1981 until now, the amount has suddenly increased by R18 million. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not done his sums; he is just talking at random. I do not accept that figure. I accept the figure based on a scientific estimate. Not one of the arguments advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister has any substance. He is only doing one thing, and that is to try and protect the hon. the Minister of Manpower, who acted out of turn. No one asked for this place not to be removed. No one knows why he did it, and now the entire Cabinet and everyone else has to protect him.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lichtenburg may argue as he likes. He knows me very well and I also know him well enough by now, and I will not allow any hon. member to doubt my integrity when I furnish data in this House.

I say your figures are incorrect.

I will not allow that.

We are not doubting your integrity, but we are saying your figures are incorrect.

I have never furnished data concerning Black people in this House without knowing what I was talking about.

The figures are incorrect.

Order!

Hon. members are kicking up a fuss about the non-removal of Kutama and Senthimula and about the whole question of establishing growth points. If the Government wishes to protect a place such as Soekmekaar and to see to it that Soekmekaar’s community is maintained after all the problems which have arisen there—hon. members know what I am referring to—what other instrument does it have than to widen the Soekmekaar corridor in order to make Soekmekaar a viable community once more? This was not done merely on the basis of the wisdom of the Cabinet. Surely hon. members are aware that the Cabinet often does not accept the proposals of its own commissions. I have a letter here which I could quote which gives all the details. I think hon. members have taken this matter a little far. On 12 November 1981 the agricultural unions concerned requested that Matoks and Ramagoep should not be removed and that Kutama and Senthimula should no longer be removed. Hon. members can come and get the details. In addition, they asked for the return of the land, which was intended to be compensatory land. The Government is in the process of doing so. The Van der Walt Commission itself said that Matoks and Ramagoep could not be removed. It would be foolish to try and do so. We are also going to return the land which was meant to be exchanged for Kutama and Senthimula. Surely we did say that this would be the case. In this way we are gong to afford Soekmekaar the opportunity of developing again. The hon. member is now claiming that Bandelierkop gives those people access to a railway line through which they gain access to Africa. Surely the hon. member is aware that his commission’s proposals—the Soekmekaar proposals, as they stand—do not mean that that land is going to be extended right up to Bandelierkop.

It extends the land right up to Soekmekaar. There is a railway line there.

Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member was not referring to Soekmekaar. He was talking about Bandelierkop. [Interjections.] At Bandelierkop the land does not extend right up to the railway station. [Interjections.] We have proposals which we are now going to submit. The Cabinet has decided that in the process, Soekmekaar should be afforded the opportunity of being opened up. This is being done now. It is being done in consultation with the people of the S.A. Agricultural Union. The hon. member for Lichtenburg would do well to obtain the documents in this connection and consult them. He would do well to go to that area, or to invite me to go there, so that we can go and ask the farmers what they requested with regard to Kutama and Senthimula, as well as with regard to Matoks and Ramagoep. Let us go and ask the farmers what they want. Let us determine whether the farmers want what the hon. member for Lichtenburg is advocating, or whether they want what the Cabinet proposed.

We can go.

We can go and ask the farmers in that area. The hon. member may just as well forget about the incident concerning me and the hon. the Minister of Manpower. After all, it is not relevant here at all. However, the fact of the matter is that we did consult the farmers, and that they themselves requested these things.

Who consulted the farmers?

The hon. the Minister of Manpower consulted the farmers, and I have here with me a copy … [Interjections.] … of a letter addressed to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, when he was still Deputy Minister. Who else must we consult besides the district agricultural union?

Should we ignore it when the hon. the Minister of Manpower says that he consulted the farmers?

What more must we do besides consulting the district agricultural union?

Must I ignore that?

Mr. Chairman, this was in fact done. However, the fact is that we can yap and argue about this situation until we are blue in the face, and that those hon. members opposite can argue as they like, to their hearts content about this situation, but they will not succeed in getting us to relinquish this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that I had gone too far now and that the fight was on between us. I want to concede to him that this is so. He and I last fought when we were in grade 1. Therefore it will not matter if we fight again today; we shall remain friends. [Interjections.]

However, I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should go and read his own report again. If he does, he will find that the argument is not relevant to Bandelierkop, but to another place. In fact, this was one of the arguments advanced for the replacement of Kutama and Senthimula. It was in fact concerned with a railway connection. It says so in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own report. He should go and read it instead of blaming me and alleging that I do not know my facts.

I say that he should go and read his own report and refresh his memory a little, then he will see what he himself said. He should also go and read in his report what it says about the cost, which the hon. the Deputy Minister alleged would be R12 million. That was only 19 months ago. He should go and read it and then come and tell us what has been happening since then. Has the inflation rate risen so enormously in Senthimula alone that the cost in that case is now going to be R30 million?

Then there is another question which I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister. He says that the hon. the Minister of Manpower consulted the farmers. I want to ask him whether an MP has greater authority now than the Commission for Co-operation and Development. Can an MP now consult the farmers in his constituency and, in so doing, completely eliminate the Commission for Co-operation and Development? All the other approaches are now being eliminated, therefore, and the Cabinet is simply taking decisions without the commission having investigated matters first. I want to know since when this has been the case. Since when have these things been happening?

All I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he is welcome to proceed in this manner. They are welcome to proceed in this matter. In this way they are giving us even more sticks with which to beat them. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to state categorically that the Commission for Co-operation and Development will in fact hear evidence, as it is the function of the commission to do, and indeed as it is Government policy that it should. This will be the case in future as well. In any event, it is not the task of an MP to hear evidence. In this case, however, we are dealing with a very senior Minister, the hon. the Minister of Manpower. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Manpower is a senior Minister, after all, and someone who knows that area very well. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon. members of the CP can run away with this matter as much as they like. As far as the amount of R30 million is concerned, I may tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg that when we were calculating the cost of the removal of Kutama and Senthimula in 1980-’81, we were still working in terms of the standards laid down by the hon. member for Lichtenburg himself.

No, the standards had already been raised by then.

Mr. Chairman, we were working in terms of the standards laid down by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. In 1980-’81, the Government decided that no removal or settlement of people would take place unless it was done with a view to development. Surely the hon. member for Lichtenburg was a member of the Cabinet at that time. He was a member of the Cabinet when those decisions were taken in 1980.

I was still a Deputy Minister when those matters were being dealt with.

In any event, the decision was that it had to be development-orientated. Surely that is correct. Since then we have had to adjust our figures. In this way, we have had to make adjustments throughout our report, and not only with regard to Katuma and Senthimula. This changes the whole picture, therefore.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his previous speech that when the representatives of the agricultural leaders met on 12 November, they were told that as far as Matoks and Ramagoep were concerned, this was no longer being planned. That is quite correct.

The hon. member is talking about 12 November. I said that this letter was dated 12 November.

With regard to that particular matter which the hon. the Deputy Minister has just mentioned, does he mean to deny that on that occasion, he himself believed that Kutama and Senthimula should be declared White areas, as he has repeatedly stated in his reports? Therefore I am convinced that the hon. the Minister himself still believes that this would have been the best arrangement. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister also says that without consulting anyone, the Cabinet decided in its wisdom that that land should remain part of Venda. So that Cabinet decision must have been taken before 7 July. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister mean to tell me that almost 14 days after this decision had been taken by the Cabinet, he was still not aware of the existence of such a Cabinet decision? Fourteen days later, on 20 July, that hon. Deputy Minister was still saying—and I quote what he said, according to The Citizen—

In other words, on 19 July. The report goes on to say—

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that the chairman of a commission which has to investigate international boundaries was still not aware of a Cabinet decision 14 days after that Cabinet decision had been taken. Neither can we accept, therefore, that such a thing existed at that stage. Otherwise the hon. the Deputy Minister must tell us that he was totally unaware of the fact that such a decision had been taken. Therefore we have to oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to get the facts straight. The hon. the Minister of Manpower made the announcement on 7 July. It is clear, therefore, that the Cabinet took that decision before 7 July. [Interjections.] On the 19th, we submitted the rest of the recommendations for consolidation to the Cabinet. But I have already told hon. members opposite that this matter was singled out and dealt with separately. At that stage I was not yet a Deputy Minister or a member of the Cabinet who could participate in taking such a decision or attend meetings in that connection. I reject the version which the hon. member for Pietersburg read. Only one true version has appeared in the Press of what happened on that day, and that is the version which appeared in Beeid. I was asked whether the announcement which Mr. Fanie Botha had made with regard to Venda indicated the final boundaries of Venda. My reply was: No final boundaries can be laid down before the matter has been piloted through Parliament by way of legislation. [Interjections.] This has been my standpoint throughout. Surely this is so. There cannot be any final boundaries before legislation in that connection has been passed by this House. Hon. members must not try to raise a dust about a few words. No boundary is final until it has been approved by this House. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister of Manpower referred to final boundaries, surely those hon. members know what he meant. He could not possibly have meant that he was going to circumvent the authority of this Parliament by announcing final boundaries before such final boundaries had been embodied in legislation. [Interjections.] There is no voter in the Northern Transvaal who does not know how consolidation works and who does not know that these decisions have to be taken by Parliament.

The Minister knows it.

They do not live in Rissik. They are not unaware of these facts. [Interjections.] The fact remains that the announcement was made and that events took their course. Now the hon. members are trying to corner me in connection with matters which I had nothing to do with.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s concluding remark is significant. He says that he had nothing to do with the whole matter. The fact is, however, that the hon. the Deputy Minister was the chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development. I cannot sufficiently emphasize the fact that South African farmers in particular have repeatedly been told that all interested parties will be consulted in all cases of consolidation. I do not for a moment doubt the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister as a person, and he has said again this afternoon that he repeats that assurance.

We now have the right to ask why an exception was made in this particular case to the promise given to our people.

He is a senior Minister.

Only one reason is given: We are dealing here with a senior Minister. Are we to assume, then, that if a senior Minister who sometimes has problems in his constituency wishes to decide differently, the promises of the Government are no longer valid? Is this the rationale? Surely there is no justification for alleging that in this case there was any reason whatsoever for these peculiar circumstances under which this decision was taken, other than the personal interests of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. I should like to know, if there was any reason other than the personal problems of the hon. the Minister of Manpower in his constituency, why the normal procedure which had been repeatedly explained to our people and which had been solemnly promised them was not followed in this case.

There is a further peculiarity. It is alleged that organized agriculture was consulted. It has always been the task of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, which has to submit the final recommendations to the Cabinet, to consult with organized agriculture. In this case, too, the reply which we are given and which is supposed to settle the matter is that the hon. senior Minister consulted with them and that for this reason it was no longer necessary for the Commission for Co-operation and Development to have any say in this matter.

I think that in this case, the conduct of the hon. the Minister of Manpower was an embarrassment, and in order to save his skin, solemn promises made in the past have not been kept.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members of the CP are trying to make a little political capital today. It is quite clear that the reason for their behaviour in this House is to be found in the fact that by-elections are going to be held. Now they are trying to discredit the hon. the Minister of Manpower, the NP’s candidate in Soutpansberg—he has been representing that constituency in this House for years— senior Minister and Leader of the House, in the eyes of the electorate and the people. This is one of their objectives. The other objective they are trying to achieve is to discredit the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Cabinet.

The hon. members pretend that the interested parties were not consulted. The hon. member should know what the functions of the commission are. He should also know, therefore, that factors are taken into consideration from time to time. It is true that the commission investigates matters repeatedly and considers certain factors. He must realize that there are numerous factors. The commission merely makes recommendations, while the Cabinet has the final say.

It is not a pleasant task to remove people, whether they be White, Brown or Black. Such a removal costs money, and on top of that it causes disruption. So there are many factors which have to be taken into consideration from time to time.

The hon. members allege that the hon. the Minister of Manpower is serving his own interests, but surely such an allegation cannot be true. We know, after all, that he has been serving the interests of his voters in this House almost all his life. That is the reason why he is still sitting here and why he will return to this House after the by-election in May. He seeks to promote the interests of his voters; not his personal interests. The hon. members are simply playing a cheap political game this afternoon. What is happening in South Africa now, and what will happen in future, is in the best interests of the people of South Africa, and if the Cabinet, in its wisdom, takes a decision at the recommendation of this commission, which is working day and night, in order to negotiate the best possible agreement in the interests of the people of South Africa, this Parliament will give effect to it.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Bryanston has already indicated, we support this Bill in principle. I must add that after the explanation given by the hon. the Minister and by the hon. member for Virginia, we are in some doubt as to whether the Bill actually merits our support, but I shall come to that later.

I just want to say, in the first place, that there are some things in the Bill which we can certainly support without any qualification. We are grateful for the fact that the restriction embodied in the present Act, i.e. that the promotion of culture by the National Cultural Council and the regional committees is confined to Whites, has been removed in this Bill. As the hon. member for Bryanston indicated, a further objective is involved with which we are also basically in agreement. I am referring to the opportunity which has now been created to develop and promote the culture of the other groups in South Africa as well. Just as we have a plurality of peoples in South Africa, we have a plurality of cultures as well.

Why do you not recognize it in your policy?

I replied to the hon. member for Durban North the other day concerning the question of culture and groups as it relates to their own policy. I do not want to go into the matter again. The hon. member for Bryanston indicated very clearly—the hon. member for Durban North should have taken the trouble to listen to him—the extent to which our policy recognizes the cultural plurality of South Africa, the hon. member would do well to read that speech again. Just as certainly as we have a plurality of peoples, we have a plurality of cultures as well. Therefore I think it is a good thing that this should be recognized and that special steps should be taken to preserve and promote the multiplicity of cultures.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing our appreciation for what the department and the National Cultural Council have been doing over the years in the field of the promotion of culture. Indeed, when one reads the annual report of the department, one sees what has been and is still being done and achieved in this connection. One also becomes aware of the enormous range of the activities of the regional committees. One sincerely appreciates those matters. On this occasion, where we are formally taking leave of the National Cultural Council, it is no more than right that we should also express our appreciation to the National Cultural Council and the members who served on the council, even though the functions of the council were quite limited. I think it is appropriate, however, that we should make use of this opportunity to record our appreciation for the work done by the Cultural Council and to people who gave up their time to serve on it.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he expects to receive the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Promotion of the Performing Arts to which he referred in his Second Reading speech.

Before I come to the Bill itself, allow me to comment on the speech made by the hon. member for Virginia. His accusation that the hon. member for Bryanston had introduced politics into the debate was not correct and was actually a case of the pot calling the kettle black. After all, the whole basis of the measure, as explained by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Virginia, i.e. the fact that this matter has a bearing on the constitutional proposals of the Government, means that the matter has in fact been brought into the political arena. What is political and what is not is actually relative in this connection. I do not want to argue about that now. I shall come back to it later.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Virginia said. I am very grateful for the appeal he made that we should be careful not to involve culture in party politics. We must indeed try not to exploit culture for party political purposes. I think the hon. the Minister will concede to me that this has in fact happened at times in the past. Let us accept that this is something which belongs to the past and let us adopt a more disinterested approach to culture and the promotion of culture in South Africa in future. Judging by the statements that have been made here, even by my friends to my left, it is important to note that what matters to us, when it comes to a disinterested appreciation of culture, is that one should look at cultural creation and cultural expression, and not at the creator of culture in terms of his nationality, colour, race, religion, ethnic context or whatever. In other words, when we judge a cultural product, a cultural form or a cultural expression, not on the basis of quality, but on the basis of the colour or race of its creator, we are impoverishing ourselves and we are simply revealing our own lack of cultivation. I am grateful for the fact that we are able to reflect on these matters in a calm atmosphere and without discussing this matter in emotional terms.

Having said this, I still have quite a few problems with the Bill. I am not referring to the problems in order to indulge in some petty political point-scoring, but because I really do have problems with the system as it is set out in this Bill and as it has been explained by the hon. the Minister and by other hon. members on the Government side. The basis of the new promotion of culture, as it appears from the Bill and as it has been explained by the hon. the Minister, is that in the first place, the Bill basically provides for two things, i.e. the promotion of the culture of the various groups or peoples in South Africa on the one hand and, on the other hand, the possibility of the joint promotion of culture in respect of those cultural aspects that are shared by all the people of South Africa. The hon. the Minister spoke about the culture of the Whites. This was perhaps an unfortunate term which he used. What he actually meant was the culture of the Whites as bearers of the wider culture of the West, or something of that nature. That is the way I understood him, but I am not going to argue the point. In that connection, the hon. the Minister said that the Ministers of the respective chambers that are going to be created would promote the separate cultures of the respective groups. In other words, this has a bearing on the segmental concept in the constitutional proposals. The Department of National Education, as we know it at the moment, will be charged with the promotion of the culture of the Whites, while the promotion of the culture of the Coloureds will be entrusted to the Coloured Minister and that of the Indians to an Indian Minister. I think this is the essence of the message contained in the Bill, as explained in this House by the hon. the Minister. In addition, this promotion of culture will be undertaken by regional committees. There are conflicts which I cannot resolve, and I am explaining my problem in a spirit of responsibility.

Let me begin with the basic principle that each group has to promote its own culture. I indicated earlier that within the context of the constitutional proposals, I have problems when we talk about the Coloured group. With the possible exception of the Malay group, which constitutes a cultural subgroup in certain respects, and perhaps the Griquas as well, the Coloureds do not have any culture of their own which needs to be promoted.

Do they not have any culture, then?

The culture of the Coloureds is the culture of the hon. member for Rissik and myself.

But that is their culture, after all. [Interjections.]

With the possible exception of the Malays and the Gri quas, who constitute cultural subgroups in certain limited respects …

What about the Bushmen? [Interjections.]

There is no point in arguing at that level. The great majority of Coloured people have no culture of their own, no culture which needs to be promoted separately. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Virginia said that we were concerned here with the separate promotion of the culture of each people. Now the Government has already conceded that the Coloured people do not constitute a separate people, and the message which is conveyed, quite correctly, is that culture is normally a concept which is associated with the existence of separate peoples. As I have said, the Coloureds are not a separate people, and for that reason they do not have a separate and identifiable culture of their own.

Do they form part of the Afrikaner people?

They do not have a separate, identifiable culture like the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking groups, for example. As we all know, their culture is the same as the culture of most of us in this House. If we were now, in terms of the concept of segmentation, to charge a Coloured Minister with the promotion of the Coloured people’s culture, what would that mean? Sir, the whole simply does not make sense to me. That whole concept is illogical. Allow me to say at once that what I am saying here should not be interpreted as a defence of the Government’s constitutional proposals, but I can only say that if the Government wants to employ the concept of segmentation and if it wants to apply that concept in respect of the Coloured people and their culture as well, the Government is doing that concept an injustice, because there is no identifiable separate culture in respect of the Coloured people.

But let us go a little further and look at the Indians as well. The hon. the Minister made it quite clear that a Minister or a Deputy Minister would be responsible for promoting the culture of the Indians. I accept the Indians as a part of the South African nation. But here again, we are faced with a problem. There are at least two major Indian groups in the country, the Hindus and the Moslems, and I believe the hon. the Minister will concede to me that as far as culture is concerned, there are basic differences between these two groups. Now I do not quite understand this, for how can we appoint one Minister or Deputy Minister to promote the culture of all the Indians?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, certainly.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Education has a branch for the advancement of culture whose function it is to promote culture among the White section of the population. The White section of the population consists of the Afrikaans-speaking people, the English-speaking people, the Portuguese-speaking people, and others. That one branch promotes the culture of all these groups. By the same token, why can one Minister not promote the culture of the various Coloured groups or of the various Indian Groups?

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. The hon. member is actually endorsing my standpoint. All my argument boils down to, therefore, is that it is not necessary to have separate Ministers. That one Minister can indeed exercise control over all the common cultural affairs of all the various groups. I shall come back to this later.

I have referred to the promotion of culture among the Indian community. Now I take it that this Bill is also concerned with the promotion of culture among the Blacks. And now I have a problem. I have the greatest respect for the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—the hon. gentlemen is not in the House at the moment—and I am also very fond of the hon. the Minister of Education and Training. I must say quite honestly, though, that I really do not regard them as people who can be charged with promoting the culture of anyone! In any event, they have too many other things to do. [Interjections.]

Now my problem becomes even worse, Mr. Speaker.

[Inaudible.]

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that these are problems which I have. The hon. member for Kimberley North should rather try to help me solve my problems. If it is the intention that separate provision should be made on this basis for the promotion of the cultures of the various Black peoples as well, what then? Hon. members on the Government side keep telling us—quite rightly—that the Blacks are made up of many different peoples. Is this going to mean, therefore, that we are going to have separate organizations for the promotion, within the context of this State—I am not talking about the national States or the independent States—of the separate cultures of the various Black peoples? This is a question I want to ask. Now someone should tell me that this is not the intention, and should then explain how it is going to be done. I should like to hear such an explanation.

When we examine the measures involving foreign countries which form part of the plan for the promotion of culture in terms of this Bill, such as bursaries which may be awarded, people who may be invited, visitors who may be sent overseas to attend exhibitions and to participate in other activities abroad, another pertinent question arises. I want to know whether it is the intention, as far as measures involving foreign countries are concerned, that each of the various Ministers—say the Minister of Coloured Culture, the Minister of Indian Culture, etc.— should be able to go and do these things off his own bat in terms of the exercising of the segmental autonomy.

That is a good question.

I have to ask this question, because I have a problem in this respect. It seems to me that the basic problem is that a fine principle, i.e. the promotion of the culture of our people, has become enmeshed in the apartheid ideology of the Government, as well as in the segmental principles of the constitutional proposals. Instead of looking at culture alone and disregarding the other factors, therefore, it seems to me that we have here an entanglement of those very things that should be kept separate. I am putting these things to the hon. the Minister because they indicate clearly the problems I have with this measure.

When it comes to the question of the regional councils, my problems grow even worse. The hon. member for Virginia said something which went to the heart of the matter. If we understood the clause, the hon. member for Virginia said, we would realize that the essence of the matter is the fact that the various Ministers responsible for promoting the culture of the various cultural groups should be given the legal basis on which to promote the culture of each specific group, and that this should be done on a regional basis.

I have already said that I have problems. We may have a Coloured Minister, for example. However, there is no national cultural body for the Coloureds at the moment. This means that everything has to be done by means of the regional bodies, just as in the case of the Whites. Does this mean, however, that that Minister of Culture who is a Coloured person will appoint a regional Council for the Cape Province, a separate one for the Free State, where only a handful of Coloured people live, and a separate one for the Transvaal? How is this thing going to work? It gets even worse when we come to the question of the Indians. [Interjections.] All I can say is that the introduction of the principle of regional councils in connection with the promotion of culture in general is not going to work in these spheres, in my opinion.

Is the PFP going to support this legislation?

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said, and I said at the beginning of my speech, that we do support it. I want to say that if the hon. member cannot understand the problems I have, the fault does not lie with me. The fault lies with him, because I am explaining the problems. I take it that the hon. the Minister has already given attention to the various facets of this legislation. We are supporting the Bill on the assumption that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us satisfactory replies to these questions I am asking. Otherwise I should be insulting his intelligence, for I really cannot believe that I am so intelligent that I am the only one who is able to discover these problems and that he has not noticed them. I assume that it was because he did not have time, or for some other reason, that he did not fully explain the situation to us in his Second Reading speech and did not give the replies to these questions which we are asking him.

The hon. the Minister also said that apart from this separate culture promotion, there would be an opportunity for shared participation in culture. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions, because I have some problems in this connection as well. Are those three Ministers going to form a joint committee for promoting that common culture to which the hon. the Minister referred and which assuredly exists? I believe that that common participation in culture exists in South Africa among all our people. We all believe this and the hon. the Minister emphasized this. I want to ask the hon. the Minister; What mechanisms, what institutions, what methods are going to be used in terms of the structure of this legislation to promote that common culture— that culture in which all the groups participate? Is it going to take the form of a joint committee consisting of the White Minister, the Coloured Minister and the Indian Minister? Will there be a national body, perhaps? The regional body—the hon. member for Johannesburg West has also referred to this— has already done excellent work for the Whites. However, if the need exists for a common participation in culture, where do the regional councils fit in? Are we going to have a joint regional council in the Cape Province, for example, which is going to concern itself with those aspects of the common participation in culture by Coloureds and Whites? If separate regional councils are established, we shall not be able to achieve and maintain that shared participation. In addition there is the problem of where mixed groups would fit into this whole situation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I shall come back to the speech of the hon. member Prof. Olivier in the course of my own speech, because I do not wish to anticipate certain parts of my speech by referring at this stage to certain arguments advanced by him.

Almost 14 days have elapsed since the debate on this Bill began. For this reason, some of the standpoints and arguments advanced at that time are no longer so clear in the minds of all of us. Therefore it is somewhat difficult to come back to some of the speeches now and to react to them. As I am going to do in respect of the speech made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier, I also wish to return periodically to some of these ideas expressed by certain hon. members.

The main idea and the objective of the Bill, in my opinion, is the promotion of culture in the Republic. The Republic is defined as the locality in which the Bill, if it is passed, will function. In the rest of the Bill—the hon. the Minister also confirmed this—provision is made for the differentiated promotion of culture in accordance with the various population groups. In fact, these are the very words which the hon. the Minister himself used. Where the existing legislation provided for the promotion of White culture, it is now being amplified or extended, therefore, to include the culture of all population groups.

I personally have no quarrel with this objective of the Bill. In fact, it is my absolute conviction that the Whites, and specifically White anthropologists, cultural historians, educationists and others have played a very significant role in the past in preserving, protecting and promoting the cultural heritage of the non-White population groups in our country. This important role which the Whites have played in this connection cannot be ignored. In my opinion, it is a fact which cannot be argued away. In this connection, therefore, we owe a debt of gratitude to these Whites who have played this important role in respect of non-White culture in the past.

In the interests of the true preservation, protection and promotion of culture, however, it is essential, in my opinion, that there by cultural differentiation. This cultural differentiation should be maintained as far as possible. Acculturation—as I see it, this is the fusion of different cultures which are in contact with and which influence one another—can carry in it the seeds of the degeneration or destruction of separate cultures in the sense that when, through the process of acculturation, those separate cultures have acquired a new form and have developed into a new culture, this will detract from the existing cultures which have undergone this process of acculturation.

In this respect I want to emphasize the fact that I think the Bill provides for the preservation of the cultural differentiation which I consider very important and for the promotion of separate existing cultures in our country and in our particular situation. However, if the Bill which seeks to promote the cultures of population groups is actually intended to bring about a shared culture, as the hon. member for Bryanston said, and if this is the intention with regard to South Africa and its people in particular and if the intention is to maintain freedom of association so that every individual may have the option of participating in the cultural activities of his choice or association, because every individual is free to do so, this means that the opporutunity may be created for a person from a particular population group with its particular culture to renounce, as it were, that culture of his own, to abandon it, because he now chooses to participate in the culture of another population group. As far as this is concerned, I believe that it would actually have a negative effect if this concession were made. One must remember that the culture of a group is in fact promoted by the more educated and more learned members of that group, the developed ones. If one allowed those very members of a specific population group the option of participating in the culture of another group, the culture of the population group to which these people actually belong would suffer, and then the purpose of this Bill, i.e. to promote the culture of the various population groups, would be frustrated. Therefore I believe that this idea of the hon. member is not a good one for the situation in the Republic of South Africa.

Actually, I want to ask, too, whether there are really so many people in this country who cannot be considered members of a specific population group, when judged by the following criteria in particular: Their family ties, their language, their customs, their religion, etc. Are there really significant numbers of people who have no ties with any population group whatever, and who therefore have no cultural home, with the result that they do not know where they actually belong in respect of participation in culture and the promotion of culture, and who should therefore be able to choose quite freely to participate in the culture of whichever group they would like to? I believe that such persons are quite rare in this country of ours and that for this reason, one should be very careful when it comes to the question of free association and so-called personal choice.

True promotion of culture is aimed in the first place at promoting one’s own culture and at doing so by means of conservation, protection and development. This, I think, should be jealously guarded and protected by this House. On the other hand, every other population group with its own cultural heritage has the same right to guard jealously the promotion and the development of its own culture. It is true, too, that cultures may influence and enrich one another. This has happened in the past and it will continue to happen in future. This process of mutual influence and enrichment is a good one. However, one should not allow it to grow to the point where it results in a complete process of acculturation, which may harm the existing cultures. As long as they can enrich one another, I have no problem with it, but when the one is harmed by the other, I feel that very serious consideration should be given to the matter.