laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Private Schools Bill (House of Assembly) [B 125—86 (HA)]—(Minister of Education and Culture).
2. (2) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan consulted me in my Chambers on Friday, 22 August, and asked me whether I would give precedence as a question of privilege to the Notice of Motion appearing in his name on the Order Paper today.

I intimated to him that I was prepared to give precedence to the motion and I now afford the hon member the opportunity to move his motion.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity you are offering me to debate the matter under discussion. I am pleased to move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (1) That he had been threatened by a Pretoria member of the House of Assembly of the Conservative Party about the contents of a speech he had made as a member in the House of Delegates; and
2. (2) that the member concerned had apologised,

the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

In the first place, as a background to my motion, I should like to quote from a speech made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the occasion of the introduction of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Amendment Bill into this House. In his Second Reading Speech on that occasion the hon the Minister said on 20 June 1984, and I quote as follows (Hansard, Vol 115, col 9350):

Later in the same debate the hon the Minister said that the same item of legislation, as it was amended before its Third Reading, would determine the rules of the game; it would determine how the actors in the new drama—the new political dispensation—would have to behave.

Mr Speaker, we are living in stressful and disturbing times—times in which, as far as this Parliament is concerned, hon members should guard jealously against the violation of the powers and privileges of Parliament. Apart from that, hon members should also act in correctly, properly and decently in their dealings with other hon members and in their discussions of other hon members.

Reports on certain alleged occurrences, to which I should just like to refer briefly, are now appearing in three different newspapers. The first is a report that appeared in the Sunday Times on 17 August 1986. The heading of that article was “Threat letter a forgery”. This was in connection with a letter allegedly written by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates to the hon member for Laudium. It is against this background that I ask that this motion be studied and attended to. The following appears in this report:

This is also related to an alleged threat to the life of the leader of the AWB.

A second report also appeared, under the heading “Abramjee se LP het hom gedreig”. This was the heading of a report in Beeld of 18 August 1986. According to this report the hon member for Laudium said:

That was 17 May—

I now ask, if a select committee found that the hon member for Laudium in the House of Delegates did use these words, for this select committee, which would form a joint committee, to determine whether this were true because it is being used in connection with the letter allegedly written by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates to the hon member for Laudium in which a threat was allegedly made on the life of the leader of the AWB. As I said, the heading reads: “Abramjee se LP het hom gedreig.” If this is true, the hon member is being threatened as a result of his behaviour as a member; therefore action should be taken against the hon member that is alleged to have made the threat. If it is not true, it is—I am using the wording of section 10(3)(1) of Act 91 of 1963—“the publication of any false or scandalous libel on any member touching his conduct as a member”.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan has sketched in brief the background to the present complaint. I would just like to point out one or two matters. The first is that it would appear that the alleged occurrences happened in May of this year—that is three months ago. We are not sure where they in fact took place—presumably on parliamentary premises but we do not know exactly where. We must therefore understand that we are here once again not dealing with a matter which happened in this particular House. We have our own special ways of dealing with such matters and normally we do not allow such a length of time to elapse.

I have no doubt, with great respect, that the motion is technically in order. I have no doubt that prima facie at any rate there must be a breach of privilege manifest here. However, that is not the end of the inquiry. Even though it may be technically correct, this House must address itself to the question whether we should have a select committee.

In our experience there have been cases in the past where quite obviously Parliament itself has become involved. One thinks back about 20 years to a grave imputation against the old Senate, and one thinks back to the time of the Port Natal by-election last year when a grave statement was made about one of the other Houses.

I would like to remind hon members that we are dealing with the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, not the Powers and Privileges of MPs Act. Of course Parliament can only be protected ultimately and effectively by protecting the rights of individual hon members—that I grant. However, I want to make the point that where we are dealing with a case which does not involve Parliament as Parliament we must be very careful indeed not to lend ourselves to a personal vendetta, a personal matter or a personal fracas. I think that unless there are special circumstances Parliament should not lend itself and its proceedings to such, I do not say minor matters, but matters which are not strictly of a parliamentary nature.

We gave our vies on a very similar matter on Tuesday, 1 May 1984 when the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament introduced a motion which was not very dissimilar from the one we are dealing with now. It referred to a particular altercation which was alleged to have occurred between an hon member on the NP side and an hon member on the CP side. The allegations were in fact even worse than those that we are dealing with here. The allegation was that a particular hon member had insulted another one, had attempted to intimidate him and had accused him of bribery.

We took a certain line—I do not say for one moment that operated in the mind of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament—and after a debate he very graciously withdrew his motion and we did not have to appoint a select committee.

I made the point that we laid down our views not as a precedent but as a guideline on that occasion. I would like to suggest that very similar circumstances operate in this particular case. In the first place we must be very careful that we as politicians do not develop thin skins. It is one thing for us to adopt a tough attitude to the outside world and our opponents but it is another matter altogether to develop oversensitive skins when we are dealing on a personal basis with our colleagues. Politics is a hard game, and we must be very careful not to become soft.

Secondly, as I have already said, this particular occurrence took place three months ago. If we as a Parliament are going to look back into the past for all sorts of witch-hunts, we shall only be storing up trouble for ourselves.

Thirdly, we are going to distract the House on a matter which is strictly personal while we are in session for the second time this year. There are 27 standing and other committees sitting at the present moment or due to sit in the near future. Do hon members realise what the acceptance of this motion will involve the secretariat in? They will have to supply the staff and administration for yet another select committee. The select committee itself cannot take any action; it can only make a recommendation to this House. We would, therefore, have to have another debate when the select committee produces its report.

As I said in 1984, the decisive consideration is whether there is an alternative remedy for the hon members of the CP. If there were not, I would be the first to support the appointment of a select committee. There is, however, an alternative remedy and that is through the Chair—yourself, Mr Speaker. I believe that you should approach the gentlemen concerned. Four gentlemen are involved, namely Mr Abramjee and the three hon members of the CP who represent constituencies in the Pretoria area. [Interjections.] I hope that was not a Freudian slip on the part of the hon member for Rissik!

It was a confession, freely and voluntarily made.

I do not think one makes a confession of that kind with such a smile on one’s face.

I do seriously suggest that the initiative could be taken by asking these four hon gentlemen in to sort something out.

There is one slight matter which distinguishes this from the case of 1984, and that is that the Press have accorded it publicity. The three newspapers mentioned have, in fact, reported this altercation between these hon members, but here again, Mr Speaker, you have it within your power to suggest to the Press the lines along which they will have to correct it if a correction is possible and desirable. There is no problem about that.

Finally, I have a slight problem here and that is that I presume that we cannot bind the other two Houses in regard to the appointment of their components for a joint committee. So, we have a problem here that we may well be debating this academically, and purely technically I would have thought that it would have been preferable to have asked merely for a select committee of this House to consider the question of the breach of privilege and not to have involved the other two Houses.

This is a storm in a teacup. I do not think it is worthy of Parliament to concern itself with such matters, especially considering the programme we still have to dispose of this session.

Mr Speaker, I hear with a great deal of respect what the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition has said here this afternoon, and I believe that at the end of his address he gave what I should call the kernel of the matter, and that is simply that the matter has been aired in the Press.

I want to ask about the people’s right to know. This is a matter that has been reported in three of our largest newspapers. It first appeared in the Sunday Times which claims to have the largest circulation of any paper—well, certainly of all English-language papers. The following day a prominent article appeared in Beeld, and I will not quote from this article again since the hon member for Brakpan has already done so. The hon member for Brakpan did not quote from Die Burger, but Die Burger also made reference to this incident and to the allegation of the hon member for Laudium, Mr Boetie Abramjee, that he had been threatened.

Parliament is not a place for threats and we cannot have that kind of thing here, irrespective of when it may have occurred. I am pleased that the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition has no doubt in his mind that what the hon member for Brakpan is seeking is technically the correct thing to do, because I agree with him. It is technically correct. While I have very little fault to find with the suggestion that you, Mr Speaker, can deal with it in chambers, as it were, I believe that having been aired the way that it has, it would be placing a tremendous responsibility on your shoulders. I think the incident would be better served by a joint select committee of all three Houses where each and every component of Parliament will be represented and each party in Parliament will be represented.

I cannot agree with the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition when he talks of a personal vendetta. I do not think there is anything in this motion that smacks of a personal vendetta. I agree that it is unfortunate that it has been some time in coming to the fore, but apparently there was nothing previously that they could really act upon. I ask myself what we would have done had it been a member of our party who was involved. Also, what if it had been a member of the Official Opposition? I ask the hon member for Yeoville, for argument’s sake, if he had been involved, what would he have done?

I get threatened all the time! [Interjections.]

I think that hon member would have been one of the first to have called for a select committee to investigate the matter. That is the crux of it. We must ask ourselves what we would have done were we in this position. I think the answer is obvious.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Yeoville is going to have one called for just now if he does not stop that! [Interjections.]

I think the answer is obvious and that is that we should have done with this matter. Let our colleagues in the CP have a select committee appointed and let us have the air cleared once and for all.

Mr Speaker, I disagree with the hon member for Groote Schuur when he says that this matter occurred three months ago. These Press reports were still being issued as recently as last Sunday. The Sunday Times says: “Threat letter a forgery.” “Abramjee sê LV het hom gedreig”, according to Beeld of 18 August. The Press persisted with these reports, and the Government felt that there was nothing to hide and that a select committee should be appointed.

I respect the hon member for Groote Schuur’s point of view, and this must not degenerate into a personal vendetta, but to clear the air, I think we have no option but to say this under the present circumstances. Neither shall we abuse this.

The hon member for Brakpan put it very nicely: “We should always conduct ourselves with dignity.” I wish he could say that to the AWB when it comes to the conduct of political parties, but that is beside the point now. [Interjections.]

On Monday we will all be members of the consistory! [Interjections.]

He is also correct in saying that we must not develop too thin a skin. As members of Parliament we must have thick skins, like the hon member for Yeoville.

I have a lot of scars!

He is threatened, but he does not take it to heart.

I also believe that the committee does not have to work for very long. It is reported, for instance, in Die Burger of 18 August:

These articles are at hand, and I do not believe that this inquest will be a long-drawn-out one.

The hon member for Umhlanga is quite correct.

†It must be a joint committee because we ought to have the other Houses participating in this whole matter.

Mr Speaker, may I ask whether the hon the Leader of the House will indicate what he thinks the position will be if the other Houses do not in fact adopt a similar proposal?

That will not prevent us from carrying on.

Take it to the President’s Council! [Interjections.]

I think that if they are not prepared to take part, then we will have a select committee of this House on its own.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon Leader of the House has said, if I understood him correctly, that all these documents are in the hands of the Police for the purpose of investigation. Is that right?

Yes.

If that is so, Sir, is that matter in fact then not pending? Is it then proper that we should have an inquiry while the Police are having an inquiry? Is this not actually an issue which you must now decide, Sir? In other words, if the Police are investigating this very matter, should you not decide whether or not this motion is proper? [Interjections.]

Order! I listened carefully to the hon member for Brakpan when he stated his case, and I also listened to the hon the Leader of the House. I think the papers which are at present in the hands of the Police are not those with which we are dealing in this matter. There are two absolutely separate matters involved. The one concerns an alleged breach of privilege by a member of Parliament of the Transvaal within the grounds of Parliament concerning the hon member for Laudium. The hon member for Laudium is also involved in the other matter, but that is a different matter altogether. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this matter can be dealt with. [Interjections.]

Sir, I merely quoted what was written in the Press about the articles that had been handed in to the police.

Now read what the Press says.

Read it yourself, Harry, man. [Interjections.]

All the letters have been handed over to the police in Cape Town for investigation… [interjections.]

Order! With all due respect, this matter does not concern letters that have been written at all. It has to do with an allegation made against a Member of Parliament.

We should now get that member of the House of Assembly from Pretoria to testify whether or not he threatened an hon member. Therefore I say that we do not have to spend much time on this, and however difficult it is, I support the hon member for Brakpan’s motion.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Umhlanga and the hon the Leader of the House for their participation in this debate and for the arguments which were advanced. I think it is only necessary for me to reply briefly to the argument of the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition.

†In the first instance, the argument that the events happened three months ago is, with respect, not a sound one because this matter only came to Parliament’s notice on 17 August. Nobody knew about this allegation or this alleged threat to the hon member for Laudium before 17 August; it was only drawn to our attention on that date. That is my first argument.

The second argument I should like to employ is that I assure the House that there is no personal vendetta whatsoever from our side against the hon member for Laudium. [Interjections.] Our attitude is also consistent with the attitude adopted by us on the date the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition mentioned, namely 20 June 1984, when our spokesman, the hon member for Kuruman, said that one had to realise that the matter involved an hon member of the CP.

In that regard I agree with the hon member for Umhlanga, namely that one should also take into consideration that it is an allegation made against an hon member of the CP. The hon member affected may be any one of three hon members and it is therefore in the interests of Parliament that this matter should be clarified.

*Since the hon members of other Houses are from time to time being referred to rather contemptuously in these times in which we are living, it is probably most important that we should perhaps, once again, give a little attention to and jealously guard the privileges of hon members of this House. That is the reason for my motion. [Interjections.]

Question put,

Mr Speaker, during the last hours of the debate last Friday, while we were discussing this Bill, I just wanted to mention that the hon the Minister was aware of the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister of Information—I am very happy that he is present in the House—is engaged in writing a song about South Africa. [Interjections.] If I may talk about it I want to say that song by the hon the Deputy Minister is one the NP can start singing when they walk past the cemetery of their late principles and assurances they gave to the voting public of South Africa. [Interjections.] After all, the hon the Minister knows—he is very sensitive when we perform comparative analyses of his education policy and that of his predecessor—that his coalition partners in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates say that obtaining the same norms and standards through the institution of a particular council is possible only if there is a completely open community—open schools from preprimary to tertiary stage. The hon the Minister cannot escape that.

I want to recommend a booklet to the hon the Minister. He would do well to read this booklet, and also to ask his advisers what they think of it. The title of the book is Opvoeding in ’n Veelvolkige Samelewing, and it was written by Dr G J J Louw. At the end of the book Dr Louw states his personal viewpoint, and says:

Therefore I want to tell the hon the Minister that consequently his point of departure based on principle regarding education in South Africa is incorrect because his political viewpoint of South Africa is incorrect. For this reason the hon the Minister will find every time, in applying this particular legislation, both in ordinary life outside as well as in educational life, that the principles and consequences of the legislation—what the hon the Minister has as his objective—will simply not succeed.

Mr Speaker, last week the hon member for Rissik also made particular reference to two concepts or themes in his speech. The first was the so-called mixed councils.

I can ascribe the opposition of the hon member and the CP, too, to the so-called mixed councils to only one thing and that is the fear in which they live. They fear that the survival of the Whites will be jeopardised and that the Whites will be destroyed by this process; and they fear that the Whites will not survive.

It is very clear to me that the CP has no confidence in the Whites of South Africa. According to them the Whites are giving up and are not capable of surviving here in South Africa. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House have much greater confidence in the Whites of South Africa. The Whites have the will to survive in South Africa. The Whites want to remain part of South Africa. The Whites are not simply jellyfish, as the CP regards them. This side of the House recognises the will of the Whites to remain a part of South Africa. With this will we can and will accommodate other groups on councils, we can deliberate with other groups, and we can take decisions together with other groups.

The second theme on which the hon member for Rissik elaborated is the so-called yielding on the part of the Government. According to him we are yielding at every turn. The NP is not giving in; we are giving opportunities to everyone in South Africa. Just because one gives someone something he does not have, one is not giving in. One is giving him the opportunity to obtain something he did not have initially. In the process one is improving such a person’s position. If to create opportunities of this nature is to yield in CP language, they must simply go ahead and call it that. We shall continue, in the field of education, too, to create opportunities for everyone in South Africa.

We on this side of the House place a very high premium on the ultimate autonomy, particularly academic autonomy, of technikons in South Africa. We also identify ourselves with what the technikons are striving for in this regard.

In order to achieve this there is a choice of two possibilities. The one is to allow each technikon to work out its own salvation in its own way and, in that way, work towards autonomy. That was the idea of the hon member for Bryanston in moving his amendment. The other method is to create a mechanism to help all the technikons along the road towards autonomy.

The lengthy investigation by the HSRC as well as consultation with the CTP indicated that uniform standards in respect of education and examinations are the appropriate thing. Evidence before the standing committee confirmed this, too. The hon member for Bryanston, however, is ignoring that evidence which was put before the committee. The institution of uniform norms and standards in order to be able to issue the technikon certificate must necessarily also lead to uniformity. This will set the various technikons specific requirements with which they will have to comply. At the same time this will probably also make greater demands on each technikon, and all the technikons accept this fact. I believe it is this that will afford a greater degree of credibility to the technikons.

Technikons are still struggling to rid themselves of the unfair and undeserved stigma of not being a first-class tertiary institution. This is an unfortunate and negative misconception on the part of the public. The technikons proved long ago that they are fully-fledged and credible institutions in the education and training milieu. Nowadays the employer, too, freely recognises this.

I therefore believe that this certification council could serve to give the final push towards total acceptance for technikons. If there is total acceptance I believe the way is clear for each technikon to follow its own path to eventual full academic autonomy. The standing committee, too, maintains this standpoint in this connection in its report.

The hon member for Johannesburg West referred somewhat diffidently to the Pretoria Technikon in this regard. I am convinced that in the foreseeable future the Pretoria Technikon will enter the stage of independence and I should therefore like to offer my humble assistance to make the Pretoria Technikon the first to gain full autonomy.

The finer details of this Bill correspond to a large extent with the SA Certification Council, but I am not going to go into that in detail now. I want to express the confidence that organisations and bodies will come forward to submit the names of genuinely knowledgeable people for appointment to this council.

We are happy to support this measure and we hope that all technikons, including those of other groups, after this measure and the next one have been accepted, will go from strength to strength in providing the extremely important training needed to give South Africa the experts with practical training necessary to fulfil the requirements of a new, technologically growing South Africa. We are happy to support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, during the discussion of the legislation concerning technikons interesting evidence was given before the standing committee. In the initial stages the input of the persons representing the Committee of Technikon Principals moved very strongly in the direction of autonomy. They were called in again at a subsequent standing committee meeting and then there was a slight change in their attitude concerning that particular point. Whilst one does not want to make an issue of that it would be interesting to know what took place between those two occasions. Something definitely happened along the way.

Be that as it may, the whole question of technikon autonomy was discussed very thoroughly. Matters discussed included the strength of the infrastructure of technikons, the availability of staff, their size, their scope etc. The technikons find themselves in a very different situation from well-founded university institutions and one has appreciation for that fact.

Finally, when the committee had to decide on the question of autonomy, my party and I felt very strongly that there should be a clause in the Bill to indicate to technikons that the Government desired those which achieved the necessary standard and strength to reach for autonomy, and that a system to make provision for validation either by way of existing legislation or by whatever other means should be written in indicating that desire by the State. In fact, the written evidence submitted by the Committee of Technikon Principals included a suggestion for just such an evaluation.

I do not really understand why the governing party considered the inclusion of such a clause unnecessary or undesirable, because it embodies the whole spirit of what so many hon members of that party have said in this House. It was stated by the hon member for Johannesburg West and again a moment ago by the hon member for Gezina. I think there was consensus in the committee that autonomy was desirable, and that technikons should be encouraged to strive for it. The older and bigger ones are probably right on the brink of just that position.

We support the amendment of the hon member for Bryanston, and we hope that the hon the Minister and the Government will reconsider because it really puts into words what the hon members of the NP have been saying in this House.

The question of an enabling clause was discussed again later. When it was not accepted, it was decided that we should make a strong recommendation in that respect in the standing committee’s report. We felt that our point of view should be well voiced in the standing committee in order that it should be taken up at Cabinet level, and that the process should continue at that level and the matter not be forgotten. The question was whether such a recommendation in the standing committee did, in fact, carry any weight or could simply be put aside. The intention of including it in the report was to motivate action in that respect.

I must say that the hon the Minister’s replies are always interesting because he has some quaint debating tricks. He either applies correct logic to the wrong premise or applies the wrong logic to the right premise in order to reach a conclusion. He leads one “om die bos” nicely with a big smile on his face.

His logic in respect of Black universities and autonomy is patently incorrect. One cannot use the premise that they are not ready or strong enough to become autonomous, and then say that is the reason why they are not represented on the Committee of University Principals. The two facts bear no relation. The very fact that they were not strong enough, and that they needed the advice, guidance and strength to be gained by participation with stronger universities was the motivation for them to be represented on that committee.

I should therefore just like the hon the Minister to know that one listens with interest to the arguments he presents. His argument about local option was rather the reverse. He told us that we were arguing against ourselves.

Sure!

We were not, and I am now going to explain this to the hon the Minister. He said that we were arguing against our own policy, but the Bill states that the Minister has the option; such a decision cannot be made at local level.

He just doesn’t know what “local” he belongs to!

I do not see how a Cabinet Minister or a Minister in one of the Ministers Councils can be described as “local”; it is central, and that is that. I hope the hon the Minister will take care with his reasoning. We are going to take careful note of his premises and subsequent sound or unsound reasoning.

Whilst talking about own and general affairs, I want to mention another interesting situation which has arisen in the standing committee, and I do it with no malice. I have already complimented the hon member for Pinetown on his input and his knowledge of the technicalities of the educational system as well as the philosophy—there may be differences there, but nevertheless. What is interesting, of course, is that the hon member for Pinetown has quite obviously now taken over as the PFP’s main speaker on education, and the hon member for Bryanston who has a very sound point of view in supporting local option and who has years of political experience…

Training!

… and training will now perhaps have to seek another position in the party. We tried to think of one, and maybe the hon member will have to look after own affairs for the reformists in the PFP or something like that. [Interjections.] We have sympathy for that hon member because he is dedicated to his ideals, but there is certainly something on the move between those two hon members as far as that is concerned.

He is on the wane.

You are talking rubbish now. [Interjections.]

It is nice to talk rubbish sometimes. One enjoys it. [Interjections.]

As I have already stated, we shall be supporting the amendment. We in this party have a great regard for the technikon as an institution. We see an immense role for them to play in the future, and certainly any method of hastening what the hon member for Bryanston described as imbuing them with a spirit of individuality and striving for greater heights, innovation, imagination and initiative can only be a positive one. It is going to be an enormous task to cope with the burgeoning population that will be seeking technikon education, and one needs that sort of input by the technikons themselves. One also needs that individualism.

We believe that this can be best served—where the infrastructure can manage it—by autonomy, and we ask the hon the Minister to consider the possible inclusion of such a clause. We will have to go into a Committee of the Whole House in order to write it in, but it would be a definite signal, an acknowledgement by the Government that is their intention but that they are doing it on a basis of cautious progress, and that the technikon will have to accord with the principles or the standards required by the central Government in order to achieve validation.

So, with those words we will be supporting the amendment of the hon member for Bryanston.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for King William’s Town has just tried his best to associate himself with the amendment, which dealt with the autonomy or “non-autonomy” of the technikons, moved by the hon member for Bryanston. If I understood correctly the speech made by the hon member for Bryanston last week, when this debate began, I gained the impression that according to him, autonomy and the independent academic freedom of such an institution determine the standard and the content of curricula as well as the standard of examination. He also created the impression that the competition between technikons, and the end product they ultimately deliver to the private sector in the person of a student that has completed his studies, is ultimately brought about by autonomy.

Our problem with the technikons—we are able to deduce this from the evidence submitted to us—lies in the fact that technikons are relatively new in South Africa, which in turn is due to the young technological world. The low potential of technical manpower that we have in South Africa at the moment is also a problem. As a result of the shortage of trained technicians in South Africa, the private sector, knowing the shortages that exist in the market, contacts the technikons direct and indicates which particular fields of study should be offered in order to enable the technikons to prepare people for what can be utilised in the technical world.

The number of courses recommended by these people vacillated between 2 500 and 5 000. These courses are now being followed at the technikon. Some of them are brand-new courses which, as I said, have been adapted to the new technological development. Other courses are advanced courses in which excellent standards have already been achieved. Consequently the exams in these courses are still set by the Department of Education and Culture: House of Assembly.

We therefore had a problem. Whereas we all felt that the long-term objective was to give technikons autonomy, we had to decide what their position would be immediately and in the short-term, for which provision had to be made for them to be able to develop in that field. The only way to fulfil this need, was to establish a certification council of that nature. Ultimately, after our discussion with the CTP, they all agreed that the establishment of such a certification council would be the right thing. Ultimately the committee was put under pressure to settle this legislation as quickly as possible so that the certification council could be established and put into operation, to provide for the needs these people are experiencing.

Against this background and with this information—and this applies to the future, too, as we see it—it will be necessary to continue to institute new courses to provide for the technological needs that will arise there. For that reason I think we drew the right inference by saying that even if the technikons were autonomous, in the long term the need would arise, in the quest for those curricula and that course content and the standards of the courses, and that need would ultimately be sought and found by the certification council.

A third factor that has come to the fore from our interviews is the fact that although the technikons are strongly practically orientated, there are also academic examinations. There is therefore something unique to technikons, which cannot be measured simply by means of external examination. For that reason, too, such a certification council, which concentrated strongly on co-ordination, standardisation of content and the interaction between the technikons, would ultimately bring South Africa something to be proud of. Our young manpower and the new schools of thought in our country will be of great assistance to us and will be able to promote the country to such an extent technologically that we shall be able to be proud of it.

For that reason and against this background, we support this legislation regarding the certification council in the short term. It was felt unanimously that in the long term technikons should be autonomous when each one reaches the point at which it is able to stand on its own.

Mr Speaker, the hon members of the NP have proffered a number of arguments justifying the acceptance of this Bill in its present form. My submission is—and my colleague the hon member for Bryanston as well as the hon member for King William’s Town reiterated the position—that every argument being put forward by an hon member of the NP, is a justification for this Bill not going through in its present form. Let me just take the speech of the most recent speaker.

The hon member for Brentwood stood up and said that one of the reasons why the technikons cannot immediately progress to autonomy is the relatively young life of the technikons as well as the explosion of new technology and the 5 000 courses—he went on at some length about it. Quite honestly, we have technikons in this country that have had a longer institutional life than the universities to which we have now just given autonomy. The University of Port Elizabeth, RAU, the University of the North and the University of Zululand are all younger than the Cape Technikon or the technikon in Natal. The technikon in Natal was founded as a technical institute in 1907 or 1908 by the Campbell family. It has been in existence as an institution far longer than the majority of universities in this country.

The kinds of arguments we are hearing are, I believe, merely sophistry designed to conceal the fact that the NP has not in fact sat down and analysed what it wishes to do with tertiary educational institutions apart from universities. I sometimes wonder whether it has looked at universities and university autonomy and shied away in relative fear from granting such autonomy and freedom to technikons and—we shall discuss these at some length later—teacher training colleges.

The history of South African universities which were associated first of all with the University of South Africa as supplementary colleges and ultimately developing their autonomy, has been followed for universities but for no other institution. We in these ranks believe that what we are proposing with our amendment—we discussed this in the standing committee—is to turn the certification council not into a body which will place a rubber stamp on the courses being run at the technikons and issue a single certificate for those technikons but into a validation council. We really believe that the examination of the actual status of a technikon ought to have been incorporated in this Bill—that it was possible for a technikon to gain full autonomy in respect of both internal examinations and the issuing of its own certificates. We believe it was very necessary for this to have been contained in the Bill.

A little of the history of the Bill was touched on by the hon the Minister in his introductory speech, as well as by some of the other speakers. However, it is salutary to note that when it was originally suggested that there be one certification council for schools, technikons and teacher training colleges, the intersectoral committee and other organisations advised otherwise, and so it was split into three.

The Minister also opposed it.

And the hon the Minister, I am glad to hear. However, and this is the problem, they accepted that the model they had devised for schools could work for technikons and teacher training colleges. I just do not believe that taking that shortcut was the right way to go about it.

There have been a number of remarks about technikons not being bodies that could in fact do their own certification and conduct their own examinations, and about the need for an interim phase. However, I want to quote from section 16 of the Technikons (National Education) Act, No 40 of 1967, as follows:

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of any other law, no technicon shall issue any certificate or diploma which indicates that a person has successfully passed an examination or completed a course of instruction or training at such technikon, unless such certificate or diploma has been recognised by the Minister and registered with the Director-General as a recognised certificate or diploma.

That section is quite clear. It indicates that a technikon can issue its own certificate, provided the Minister has agreed to it. However, it has never been implemented.

We can turn to the intersectoral report on this. I want to quote from page 53 of that report as follows:

I want to quote what is stated in brackets—

Let us remember that last point. They issue certificates for non-subsidised short courses that they offer as community training. Therefore we are not talking about institutions that do not have some element of autonomy, and this is the very problem the standing committee wrestled with. We found it difficult to accept, dealing with the 16 to 18 technikons in South Africa, that they were all equal. They are not all equal. However, unfortunately the Bill tries to shut its eyes to that fact. Certain technikons have advanced well past the point where they can be considered as institutions which do not have internal examining rights and which should not be in a position to issue certificates. If one wanted to, I think one could satisfactorily rank these bodies.

It is interesting to refer to the recommendations in the report. I quote from page 102:

No evidence was led from that body supporting this Bill.

We turn now to a further aspect of the history of the Bill and how it arrived before us. I should like to refer to the De Lange Committee which sat in 1980, 1981 and 1982 and evaluated the educational situation in South Africa. This committee looked at technikons and arrived at the following conclusion—and I quote from where it concerns curriculum development:

Professor Boyes today recommends that such validation might be extended to university degrees—a suggestion hardly likely to find support in university circles. However, the point is quite clear, namely that the detailed recommendation from De Lange was that a validation road should be followed, not a certification road. There is a clear and distinct difference between the two because in essence the validation road is the same road as that which the universities follow. It allows the technikon to follow a route towards autonomy in terms of its internal procedures. There is nothing in this Bill which in fact recommends that position.

One of the other quite distinct problems which the PFP have with this legislation as it stands now is the question of one certificate. Hon members may ask why we are against one certificate here when we were for one certificate for schools. It is quite clear that what we are talking about are two totally separate educational structures. For schools, we are looking for one certificate for the whole of South Africa in order to certify, if you like, that there is a non-discriminatory educational end process. However, as far as technikons are concerned, each technikon has its own character, ethos, history and pride. That is what one is now not allowing it to demonstrate.

I must tell you, Sir, that I find it amazing that NP members who have technikons in their constituencies have not stood up against this measure, because the technikons are not happy with it. There is no doubt about it that the technikons are not happy to only have one certificate. They are not happy about the fact that this avenue is in the end the one that is being followed.

Interestingly enough, the hon member for King William’s Town cited the evidence presented to the standing committee, and we have documentary evidence. I just want to quote the introductory paragraph on page 8 from the “Memorandum oor Interne Eksaminering en Sertifisering aan Technikons”. It reads as follows:

What are the technikons saying? They are saying that there is an international procedure for the recognition of technikons as autonomous institutions, and that they recommend that the hon the Minister and his department examine that procedure and accept it as a possibility. If one goes through this document it is clear that there is nothing here that is racial in intent; all it does is establish a procedure whereby a technikon can be evaluated and can be granted validation, as it were; granted the right to internally examine and grant certificates.

Not once did we hear an argument in that standing committee why this was rejected. What we heard was that the model we have for certification councils for schools would work for the others. I should like to tell hon members that it will not work. If I may merely quote the very words of the report of the standing committee—the hon member for Johannesburg West also cited them—as follows:

It carries on as follows:

I should, however, also like to quote the second paragraph, a two-line paragraph:

If that is not a motion of no confidence in that clause of the Bill, I have not heard anything else. There is nothing that standing committee heard that justify the final conclusions arrived at in this Bill.

I should like to add an additional comment from the Committee of University Principals. They too had objections to the Bill. Again I regret that these have not been specifically addressed in the Bill. Universities and technikons work in close co-operation in handling certain courses. Teachers’ training is one and there are others. Teachers’ training is specifically excluded, in this Bill, from the certification council—quite correctly, because it would probably fall under another certification council. I would, however, like to read from the memorandum of the Committee of University Principals:

That is, say, all the courses on which the technikons and universities work together should be excluded. That has not been done. It quite specifically has not been done. I will be very surprised if this piece of legislation is not back on our Order Paper by the next session, because it is simply not workable in its present form. We kept on insisting that was the point. [Interjections.]

We proposed an amendment that we decline to pass this Bill “unless and until the Government takes full steps to include in the Bill provisions making it possible for all technikons in South Africa to attain full autonomy in order to enable them to internally examine and certify all candidates admitted by the council of each technikon”. The last phrase—that is one accepted by the House in this amendment that we have proposed for debate—namely “all candidates admitted by the council of each technikon” is another area that we debated under the Bill on universities. That concerns the admission of students to an institution. It is very interesting that in the case of the universities we have a quota clause which quite clearly restricts admission to universities.

What, then, is the case in regard to technikons? I received the following reply from the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly on 13 May 1986. I asked what the current policy was regarding admission of non-White students to White technikons. He said (Hansard: House of Assembly, Questions, May 1986, col 1714):

Those were the hon the Minister’s words.

That is very interesting, Sir. The De Lange Committee had a subcommittee on legal matters and it had the following to say about the admission of students to technikons:

There we have it, Sir. We are talking, in the amendment we proposed, about antonomy, about the right to examine internally, about the right to issue one’s own certificates, and also about the right to admit students on one’s own.

I regret to say this, but what we are fighting in this regard is the whole philosophy of the NP that it, and it alone, as government of the country, knows what is right for people, is prepared to set those demands, and is prepared to insist that those demands are met. [Interjections.] We believe they are wrong. We believe this Bill is wrong. We believe this Bill needs to be taken away and that another Bill which severely changes the entire purpose from one of controlling technikons to one of validating and freeing the technikons and making them autonomous, needs to be presented to this House.

Mr Speaker, when the Conservative Party states that it does not support the Bill under discussion, it involves completely different reasons to those which the hon members of the Official Opposition cite here as the reason for their opposition. In the first place their argument concerns the question of the autonomy of technikons. In the nature of things the Conservative Party itself—and I think the hon the Minister and his party also do not object in principle to technikons being granted autonomy—has no objections in principle in this regard, and when the stage is reached when autonomy has to be granted to technikons, we in this party will without question give it our support.

In linking up with the hon member for Gezina’s argument—and this incidentally is the only aspect on which I agree with him this afternoon—I want to point out that it will be a special occasion for us when the technikon of Pretoria achieves that status.

The reason why we cannot support the Bill under discussion is firstly because the provisions of clause 4, which pertain to the composition of the envisaged Certification Council. I do believe that the hon the Minister will at least concede today that Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks will be able to serve on that Certification Council. If the hon the Minister wants to make me believe that it is not going to be a multiracial council, I still want to know what a multiracial council actually is then. The hon the Minister apparently does not like the words “racially mixed". I shall therefore just content myself with saying that people of a variety of races will be included on the same council. We on this side of the House cannot support this under any circumstances because it is in conflict with our policy.

Just as we differ with the Government, we also differ with the hon members of the PFP in regard to the question of one and the same certificate—although naturally for other reasons as well. The CP in terms of its policy, believes that the institution of each group—White, Coloured, Indian and Black—should have its own certification council, and should therefore also issue its own certificates.

The hon member for Gezina, in connection with this Bill, attacked the CP mainly for two reasons. He alleged that the CP was apparently not prepared to consult people of colour about education. Now I just want to ask: To consult with people of colour on universities, technikons, schools or any other matter concerning education, is it a precondition or prerequisite that it has to be one racially mixed body on which everyone has to serve to be able to consult, or can people of different racial groups also consult with each other about these matters if they serve on separate, independent bodies? We do not believe in a racially mixed body; we believe that consultations can take place and that they can take place better on a basis of independent bodies whereby people can consult with each other on these matters from the basis of their own independence.

The other accusation which the hon member made against us, is that the CP does not grant these people the opportunities which they do not have at the moment. But the CP time and again states that it does not begrudge all the other racial groups the things which the Whites enjoy, but separately. Now this is the problem I have; we do not have a problem with granting these other people opportunities—it is our policy! But the question is once again whether it is a prerequisite, or whether it is essential that if one wants to grant other people opportunities and give and create opportunities for them, that it has to be within unitary structures, within racially mixed unitary structures? If one creates it outside unitary structures, therefore within own structures, it seems to me as if one does not grant them, give them, or create the opportunity for them. The CP rejects this kind of logic, because we say we are prepared to grant these people the same opportunities, but everyone in its own area within its own independent structures. That is why it is not acceptable to us that, with this Certification Council, a unitary structure is now being created.

There is a second matter on which I want to focus a little more closely, also with this amending Bill in mind. During the discussion of a previous Bill in connection with education, the hon member for Kuruman last Wednesday or Friday, with reference to an interjection, made the remark that within the White state which the CP talks about, people of colour will also be present.

The hon the Minister seized on this by alleging that if this were the case, the CP will eventually come up against the same dilemma as the Government has. The CP will then have to contend with the same problems as those which the NP now has to contend with, as far people of colour are concerned.

The hon the Minister thinks in terms of the Government’s policy of power-sharing, and he wants to project the dilemma of the NP onto the CP with reference to the CP’s policy. The hon the Minister is therefore guilty of a basic error of reasoning. We do not argue or debate on the basis of a policy of power-sharing, but on the basis of a policy of distribution of power, a partition policy and a standpoint of separation. On the basis of that we have another standpoint on statecraft, ethnic policy, the economy, labour in the White state, and therefore education as well.

It is now very clear to me that the hon the Minister will have no comprehension of the CP’s view of partition and separation in regard to these matters as long as he views these aspects from the standpoint of his policy of power-sharing. The NP has after all abandonest this and forgotten about it, as it has forgotten about many other things.

Now the hon the Minister has apparently objected to the fact that I regard him as a politically conservative person. He then told me that he was not conservative and that he was what he was. Let me tell the hon the Minister that if one is not politically conservative, in my view one can only be one of two possible things: One can be either politically liberal or politically neutral.

Now I must warn him. I should not like to brand him a liberal as far as this view and this education policy is concerned; nor do I not want to hang this label around his neck, but I am afraid that I shall have to do so, because otherwise I have to regard him as neutral and if one is neutral, one is neither fish nor fowl, politically speaking, and if one is neither fish nor flesh one is nothing in political terms.

Then one is a Nat.

And then we find ourselves in a dilemma, and I do not want to hang such a label around the neck of the hon the Minister. Let it therefore suffice to say that he has to be liberal in his view. The CP is conservative in its view, and we differ in connection with this point of departure, also as far as our view of education is concerned.

Therefore, since the CP on the basis of its policy of separation, its policy of partition, states that education and education facilities should also be separate—including, therefore, the body responsible for certification at technikons, with all the duties entrusted to this body in terms of this amending Bill it can under no circumstances support such a council in view of its policy of separation and its standpoint on separation. Therefore the CP will vote against this Bill.

Mr Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon members for Johannesburg West, Gezina and Brentwood for their participation in this debate. They have indeed made my task much easier, because I associate myself with the arguments they advanced in respect of why the Bill is as it is, why it should remain that way and why, as a result, I do not see my way clear to accepting the amendment moved by the hon member for Bryanston. I shall come back to this in more detail later.

Let me begin with the hon member who has just resumed his seat, as well as with the hon member for Rissik. I should like to tell the hon member for Koedoespoort that the future of this country does not depend on our ability to give people names and labels, but on our ability to establish solutions in practice which will give everyone in this country the feeling that they are realising their full potential on every level of life, whether it is the political, the educational or the economic level. The hon member can give me and other people names until he is blue in the face, without making a single contribution to solving South Africa’s problems. [Interjections.]

The hon members feel threatened because a racially-mixed body is being established here, but then the hon member for Koedoespoort also displayed his completely erroneous approach to what is really at issue. Both hon members pleaded for superior bodies and said each population group should have its own certification council.

The purpose of the legislation is to establish a single standard, precisely because there are different institutions. In the case of education there are various departments of education and in this case quite a diversity of technikons from which the pupils or students are absorbed into the same labour market when they leave. This is the importance of the admission we have received from the hon member for Kuruman for the first time.

Had you heard that we have a different labour policy?

The hon member for Kuruman, who is the Chief Whip of the CP, has admitted clearly for once, and it is recorded in Hansard, that there will always be large numbers of people of various population groups, not in their own independent sovereign fatherlands, but here. They will live here, work here, be born here and die here.

You are putting words into my mouth again!

No, that is exactly what the hon member admitted.

I did not say large numbers would be present.

That is correct, large numbers.

I said they would be present, but with White majority decision-making in South Africa.

Now that is very interesting. The hon member is qualifying what he said.

I am not qualifying!

Their policy now, if I understand it correctly, is that outside the sovereign independent states of the Coloureds and the Indians and every Black people, there will be a majority of Whites. That is what the hon member said in his interjections.

That is what we are striving for.

Oh, that is what they are striving for. I do not know when they want to realise that endeavour; all I know is that despite our best efforts when we were in the same party under the dynamic leadership of Dr Verwoerd, we could not decrease the numbers, but the numbers here continued to grow. Surely those are the facts! [Interjections.] No, Sir, that has nothing to do with the Bill! The hon members are dream merchants whose dreams cannot be realised in practice. That is a basic point of difference and they must reveal a few more facts about their plans before anyone will believe they can be realised.

What does the hon the Minister think of that?

I want to return to the crux of the Bill. The crux of the Bill is that we do, in fact, want a single standard so that employers, as well as the holders of the certificates, can be sure that it is a uniform standard, so that there is certainty about the level the particular student has reached at the point of exit, with NTS 3 or Matric for example. That is what it is all about. That is why the hon members’ arguments are absurd within the framework of the objective of the legislation; they should attack the objective and not the method. They should say No, we must not have one standard; we must have a multitude of certificates in Southern Africa, and in each case the employer must simply determine what value he attaches to the certificate. They advocate the kind of chaos which can be found elsewhere in the world and which simply makes no sense in a country or region which is economically interdependent as Southern Africa is.

We feel so strongly about this that provision was made in the legislation for institutions from other states and self-governing states, which have complete political autonomy, to link up with this new communal body which must ensure one standard in respect of the control of their educational bodies. [Interjections.] That is so simple that I do not want to take it any further.

I agree with the hon member for Rissik that the technikon also has a development task. The technikon must have a campus character which can inspire students, etc. That is true, and that is why our whole system recognises that the technikons should also be regarded as community-based institutions, particularly in respect of those facets, which have a direct bond with the various departments for own affairs.

In the last place I merely want to say we are not creating a political body in doing this. The hon members of the CP link everything to power-sharing, but we are dealing here with an educational institution which is going to consist of expert educationists.

[Inaudible.]

No, I am not running away from the others. The CP is politicising the institution with their arguments. It is not going to include a single politician, and political convictions will play no part at all. The CTP itself will nominate four of its members. In addition there will be six people who are suitable because of their educational qualifications and expertise. The issue is not politics, but expertise in matters concerning the activities of the council, viz in this case the certification and curriculation in respect of the standards of technikons.

The key argument of the hon members of the PFP as well as the hon member for King William’s Town was that we did not at this stage recognise the degree of autonomy they deemed desirable and had failed to include a procedure by which it could be recognised. In the first place I want to say I associate myself fully with the plea made by the hon member for Bryanston that greater attention be given to technical and technological development.

It seems it does not penetrate, although I tell people time and again I have referred this basic question to the South African Council for Education with a view to devising a strategy for implementation and a more detailed policy on how we can bring about the about-face in the approach in South Africa, and how we can rectify the imbalance in the training situation. We have too many people with a merely general training and too few people with technical skills who have been trained on a technological basis. That is the responsibility of the South African Council for Education. They have instructions to give this matter high priority, and to the best of my knowledge they are giving this facet penetrating attention at this stage. That is also the case as it was dealt with in the White Paper with reference to the De Lange Report.

The hon members also advocate recognition of autonomy in this sphere—if I may put it like this—earlier than is provided for in the Bill. With reference to my colleagues who spoke on this side of the House, I want to say that this Bill is in fact an important step in the direction of that objective.

The technikons have basically been established, and are accepted as institutions for tertiary education here in South Africa. We are pleased about that, because after all, it was the Government that granted assistance. It was always our policy that this should happen. I am pleased that we have reached that stage and that I can make this general statement.

No one will deny, however, that the technikons are still experiencing a development phase. An important facet of this development is that the acceptance of technikon qualifications by the market they serve must be developed even further. The hon member for Gezina referred to that in particular. The Certification Council will be an important mechanism in this process.

One must keep in mind that many of the present autonomous universities also went through a college phase in which objective tests for standards were applied. I want to say unequivocally that the Government accepts that the technikons can and must reach a stage at which they will become certification councils in their own right with an own charter. We accept that; we need not be convinced of it. We agree with the majority of the standing committee that the step we are taking is the appropriate step on the course to that objective at this stage.

†The hon members for King William’s Town, Pinetown and Bryanston, each in his own way, suggested that we should have indicated how technikons will become academically autonomous. The present approach in this Bill was followed after an in-depth investigation by the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council. It is not just the result of a political decision. The UTAC carried out a full investigation, and their conclusion was that the present approach is the correct one at this stage in the development of technikons.

In the White Paper the Government agreed to the establishment of a central certification council which should also set the standards at the different points of exit by way of national examinations, which included the technikon certificates. The intersectoral committee which investigated the establishment of a certification council decided at an early stage that one council could not fulfil the certification functions for both school and post-school certificates. At that stage already the Committee of Technikon Principals approached the Minister—my predecessor, at that point in time—with a request that the question of the examination and certification of technikon qualifications be investigated. In the subsequent investigation by the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council it was found that the technikons should not be granted academic autonomy at this stage but that a certification council be established for them.

The argument for autonomy with regard to admission which the hon member for Pinetown advanced did not reflect the fact that section 25(2) of the Technikons (National Education) Act, 1967 contains basically the same quota section as that in the Act on universities. There is, in other words also at this point in time a statutory limitation upon them in that regard.

He argued in conclusion that this Bill is not workable. I listened carefully to him. He did advance arguments why he felt it would be preferable to amend the Bill, but he did not advance one argument in substantiation of the statement that this certification council cannot work and will not operate successfully and will not be able to attain the goal which is clearly set out in the Bill. [Interjections.]

In conclusion the hon member for King William’s Town did some analysing with regard to my debating style. I listened carefully to him and he did exactly what he accused me of. He makes the wrong assumption, he adopts an incorrect premise in regard to the functions of the CTP and then he applies logic to come to an incorrect but seemingly logical conclusion. He is learning fast if he is correct in analysing my style. That particular argument did not carry much weight.

I thank all the hon members who participated and I want to reiterate that I do not think it is necessary to amend the Bill as proposed by the hon member for Bryanston, to bring about the goal with which we do not have any problem. I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment. We will not be doing it next year; we must get the certification council off the ground and give it time to undergo the necessary development whereafter we will be able in a more considered manner to look again at the question of autonomy.

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

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Committee of Technikon Principals at present consists of the principals of the technikons falling under the Departments of Education and Culture in the Administrations of the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. In terms of section 28(1A) of the Technikons (National Education) Act of 1967, the principals of the technikons falling under the Department of Education and Training are entitled to attend any meeting of the committee and to take part in discussions, but they may not vote.

*The definition of “technikon” is being amended by clause 1, however, so that all the principals of the said technikons gain full membership of the CTP. It is, therefore, necessary to delete section 28(1 A) of the principal Act.

In clause 3 the activities of the Committee of Technikon Principals are expanded. Among other things, the committee will in future, with the approval of the Minister of National Education, be able to prescribe the conditions and standards for entrance to study at a technikon and to grant permission for certificates issued by the South African Certification Council to be endorsed to indicate that candidates have satisfied these requirements.

In terms of clause 4, the principal of an institution for advanced technical education in a self-governing national state can now become a member of the CTP if the Government of the Republic and the government of that self-governing territory agree thereto. When such an agreement has been reached, the CTP will also be able to perform its functions in that self-governing territory.

Mr Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the Government lacks the wisdom and insight needed to see when it is necessary to accept advice from the Official Opposition. If the hon the Minister accepted the advice we tried to give him, it would avoid embarrassment in the future when the Government has to undo what they have done. However, we are quite happy to fulfil the particular responsibility and task in this House whereby we place on record amendments, ideas and speeches which the Government can use at a later stage when they come to more mature insights on these matters. [Interjections.] I do not really mind whether they give us credit for that or not, as long as they do the right thing. We know that they will do the right thing but that will only happen eventually after a long, sad journey through some very unfortunate events.

This particular piece of legislation is very brief but, in fact, makes provision for the treatment of Black technikons in exactly the same way as White, Coloured and Indian technikons are being treated, particularly in respect of the representation of the heads of Black technikons on the Committee of Technikon Principals. I think that is a particularly good step which is being taken because in the field of technikon education, which we discussed extensively in the course of the previous debate, it is particularly important that there should be communication and cooperation among the various technikons. The technikons should have an opportunity of sharing knowledge, experience and ideas. As I say, it is important that they should support, encourage and promote one another. That can best be done if there is a body such as the Committee of Technikon Principals with an adequate infrastructure of its own where the representatives of the various technikons can in fact carry out these responsibilities.

Having listened very carefully to the debate between the (Government and the CP it seems to me that the CP in particular, and to an extent also the Government, are unaware of the particular nature of a technikon—how it operates and whom it trains and teaches. A technikon is different to a university in many, many respects. A technikon operates in very close collaboration with the community it serves, but the community that is served by a technikon is not an ethnic, racial or cultural community; a technikon serves in the first instance a commercial or industrial community because the people whom technikons educate and train are the persons they educate and train to operate within commerce and industry. They train the technicians and the technologists who operate in commerce and industry. Therefore a technikon’s community is an industrial or commercial community, a technical community, and a technical community is not racial, ethnic or cultural, not at all. [Interjections.]

The Witwatersrand Technikon, for instance, serves the industries and the commerce of that particular area, and there is a very close relationship between the industries and the technikon. For instance, technikon students are very often not full-time students. Technikon students are very often part-time students, and technikon students attend the technikon either on their way to work or on their way from work. [Interjections.] Therefore there is a very close relationship in terms of that cycle—the home-employment-technikon cycle, which is not the case with regard to universities. University students can very often be accommodated in hostels. They are full-time and they do not have a direct relationship with the industrial community, but, in the case of technikon education, there is a very close relationship.

The second type of relationship is the following. The type of training which is provided by technikons is very often of such a nature that it is very closely related to the in-service training which is provided by the particular type of commerce and industry which is being served. One also finds that in the provision of this type of education, in the designing of its courses, in the content of its courses and in the structuring of its courses too there is normally very close collaboration between the technikon and the industry concerned. In that way too the community on which the technikon concentrates is the industrial and technical community.

The third point is that a technikon is often served by lecturers who are in the full-time employ of some industry or other. Therefore the technikon does not only have members of its own full-time staff lecturing but also draws part-time teaching staff from within the community it serves. Once again, Sir, that community is an industrial and technical community.

In respect of every one of the three principles or factors which I have mentioned, it is a technical community and not a cultural, racial or ethnic community. Therefore, Sir, the concept that a technikon should be bound either to a racial or a cultural or an ethnic community is a completely false concept. It is a dangerous and unwise concept. A technikon must be bound to, must serve and must be related to a technical, industrial, commercial community. Moreover, Sir, it is a fact that every industrial, technical, commercial community in South Africa today is multiracial. It is impossible to determine that there are such things as uniracial or uni-ethnic technical, commercial and industrial communities in South Africa. Every single community is multiracial. There is not a single industrial or commercial activity of any…

Multiracial or non-racial?

I have said multiracial.

What is the difference between multiracial and non-racial? [Interjections.]

The point is that there is not a single activity of that nature in South Africa today which is not yet multiracial and in which there are not people of all race groups operating within that activity. The indications are that in the next few years in virtually every single one of these communities there will be a large majority of Black people in those positions. That is so because that is the nature of our society. It is also so owing to the composition of our society. Furthermore, our commerce and industry will reflect the nature and the composition of the South African society. For this reason it is absolutely nonsensical, unwise and dangerous to consider technikons to be a part of a cultural or racial community. Therefore too every single technikon will be seen and approached and developed by the Government as a technikon serving the whole technical community—therefore, multiracial in character. There should accordingly be no provisions such as the quota clause which still exists in respect of technikons as well.

Therefore, once again, with all the power of persuasion at my disposal, I want to appeal to the Government—in the interests of South Africa, of commerce and industry and of our technikons of the future, as well as in the interests of race relations—to help us get rid of that totally offensive and deplorable provision on Our Statute Books. Let us remove it because not only is it racially offensive but it is also technically totally nonsensical. It makes no sense whatsoever. Our technikons must serve all the peoples of our country, and there should be no provision whatsoever compelling them to be racially structured.

Let us take any industry in Johannesburg. By way of example I want to refer to the printing industry. On every factory and shop floor in the printing industry the technicians of today belong to all race groups. They have to be trained at technikons. It is unthinkable that White apprentices should go to White technikons, Black apprentices to Black technikons, Coloured apprentices—for those in the Cape—to Coloured technikons, and Indians—for those in Durban—to an Indian technikon. It is unthinkable that the people who are going to have to work together, who are going to have to co-operate with each other, and who are going to have to understand each other—for instance, in situations in which Blacks have been promoted to positions where they enjoy authority over and have to supervise Whites—have to study and be trained separately. It is quite unthinkable, Sir!

I believe the Government should actually see to it that technikons are not racial in any way. The Government must ensure that technikons are multiracial and that there are no provisions whatsoever which can make them racial. If the Government does that it will be doing technikons a great favour and it will be doing South Africa a very great service.

In the future tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of technicians and technologists, from all race groups, who are going to have to work in the same factories, are going to have to be trained in South Africa. Our economy is going to be absolutely dependent upon that, and so it would be dangerous and it would create unnecessary racial prejudice, racial tensions and racial friction if the training of these people were to take place in racially segregated institutions.

Mr Speaker, the measure before us is the necessary and logical consequence of, and amendment resulting from, the passing of the Certification Council for Technikon Education Bill.

It is therefore essential for all the technikons to be represented when the CTP—the Committee of Technikon Principals—meets to adopt and formulate policies which are in the interest of technikons in general.

If we want to argue, as the hon member for Bryanston has argued, that technikons should be at the disposal of everyone who has an interest in technikon education, this would mean that the technikons in South Africa would have to be opened up to everyone.

As far as the universities are concerned, we have the principle that the distinctiveness of a university lies in a particular community, and I think it is also right for technikons to be established in a specific community and then to grow out of that community. That is why this side of the House is not interested in establishing a technikon which everyone can attend, because if we want to lead the technikon to eventual autonomy, in fact academic autonomy, as was said in the debate on the previous Bill, it is necessary for the technikon and the community to enter into a partnership to facilitate this.

After all, technikons are not needed for only one section of the population; there are also technikons for other groups. Although there are technikons for other groups, it is true that more technikons have to be made available for them. The fact of the matter is that there is definitely an insufficient number of technikons for the various groups. With the technological development that South Africa is undergoing, more technikons will definitely have to be established.

It would be foolish for us to allow the Committee of Technikon Principals to exclude rectors or principals of specific technikons from the deliberations on matters of policy affecting technikons. In order to achieve the optimum degree of uniformity in this decision-making, in my opinion it is only logical for all technikon principals to be represented on the CTP. It is therefore necessary to approve this measure so that all the technikon principals can be accommodated in a specific body—in this case the CTP. The best way in which to ensure that every technikon can have a say is to make provision for this.

We should like to support this Bill and wish the technikons of South Africa everything of the best, and we hope and trust that a very prosperous future awaits technikon education in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bryanston sitting here next to me is getting more like a member of the NP every day. The more he speaks here, the more evident it becomes that he could just as well have been a member of the NP caucus.

I shall bring a witness to what Mr Abramjee wrote.

The hon member must be careful that he does not talk himself into a corner.

The closer the hon member moves to the NP, the more inexact and incoherent his terminology becomes, and also his view of the situation in South Africa, including that of education.

I do not think the hon member for Gezina tried to reply to the hon member for Bryanston’s arguments, and I find it a pity that he did not do so. In the old days the hon member for Gezina was an extreme rightwing member of the NP, and the hon member for Bryanston would easily find a niche in the left wing of the NP [Interjections.] The hon member for Gezina did not give a fundamental or basic reply to the standpoints of the hon member for Bryanston. The hon member for Bryanston, for example, said that a technikon was there solely to serve industry and commerce. Surely that is not so. The hon member is the PFP’s chief spokesman on education.

A person is not, after all, like a robot. When one is attending a tertiary institution and taking a specific scientific course of study or equipping oneself for some or other job, this surely does not divorce one from one’s humanity. And that is specifically what I was advocating and why I put forward my standpoint.

The hon the Minister conceded that our technikons are not there merely to cater for the technical side of a specific student. It is a formative, educational, cultural community in which one is dealing with people. When one has trained someone in a certain technical skill, for example to be a printer, a typesetter in the newspaper world or whatever, one is surely not dealing solely with someone who has the ability to do a particular typesetting job, because one is also dealing with the person as a whole. A tertiary institution must also aim at the education of the person as a whole.

Let me tell the hon member that what he had to say was completely off the point. The hon member must not talk about “multiracial” in South Africa. He should rather speak of “non-racial”. When one looks at a person one must not, in any shape or form, see such a person within an ethnic or racial context. To the PFP’s way of thinking one must move away from that completely. The hon the Minister would then very quickly realise that the reality of human diversity is much more tangible than the hon member thinks. I shall leave the hon member for Bryanston at that.

The PFP—we are now on the fourth piece of legislation relating to education—did not present us with a clear alternative in regard to their educational policy in South Africa. In connection with this fourth Bill I now want to come back to the hon the Minister and mention a few things.

I just want to come back to what the hon member for Kuruman said in reply to a question which the hon the Minister put to him by way of an interjection. In regard to Coloureds, Indians and Black people in this country, the hon member for Kuruman said:

That is according to the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The hon the Minister of National Education would do well to read the speech made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. As far as the speeches of the hon the Deputy Minister are concerned, at times one can stick a pin into the crack between the standpoints of the CP and those of the hon the Deputy Minister. He went on to say:

Surely there is nothing strange in that.

Order! The hon member for Rissik put forward that point in reply to the hon the Minister’s argument, but he must not take that argument any further now. He must get back to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I shall not take it too far; I can assure you that I am going to be very brief today. We are, however, conducting a debate here on education in the country and we want to indicate how the NP has fundamentally deviated from its view.

A previous hon member of the House, Mr P S Marais, moved a private member’s motion in which he stated:

What year was that?

Does it make any difference?

No, but just tell us!

It was in 1967. [Interjections.] The NP kicked us out because we were said to have deviated from certain principles. I just want to say that it is not all that strange for the NP to speak, in this House, of a homeland for the Whites in South Africa.

Just go and read up on the subject! [Interjections.]

The State President said: Take from the past what is good and what is fine. That is also what Oom Paul said. That is all I want us to do.

The other day the hon the Minister said an astounding thing about tertiary education. I now want to be very amical towards him, because I am working on him at a distance. Sometimes I gain the impression that when the NP now sitting here was being led by Verwoerd and Strijdom, the hon the Minister pursued the principles of separate development without qualification. Now that the State President has taken the lead it has become completely Prog-orientated. I want to remind the hon the Minister about what he said the other day, and that is that he was in favour of students of colour also being accommodated at our Afrikaans-medium Universities; then comes the adjunct—this is what they tell the old conservatives—without encroaching upon their character and their community affiliation.

It is not merely an adjunct; it is very important.

No, that is the ambiguity characteristic of the NP. They take a giant step to the left, right up to the Progs where they already are. The moment they realise where they are, they do briefly have to tell those who listen to what they are saying that the party’s character and independence, etc, will be maintained, but that is erroneous double-talk. Now the hon the Minister is qualifying this. He says he is in favour of that, because they have always allowed the non-White students attending White universities to end up in the clutches of what is unadulterated liberal philosophy. The Afrikaner misses the opportunity to have people understand his way of thinking and his philosophy.

This evening the hon the Minister must go back and think carefully about what he said here today—I hope the Whips will give him time off because he has worked hard during the past few days and also still has quite a few things to tell the young people in the Transvaal.

The last paragraph of the report in The Citizen is wrong.

I thank the hon the Minister for saying so, but I read it in an Afrikaans newspaper! The reports in the Nasionale Pers newspaper are, of course, less credible than those in the Citizen. On the strength of his reply to the hon member for Bryanston the other day, I want to know to what extent the hon Minister wants tertiary institutions to be mixed, to what extent he wants our schools to be mixed. He professes to exactly what I do—even if his is only lip-service—and that is support for own communities in South Africa—and he says that tertiary institutions form part of the community of a specific population group. We have said throughout the years that the non-Whites studying at Ikeys, Wits and other leftist universities are almost completely divorced from their own communities and cannot eventually serve their own people in their own communities as academics or people trained in various fields of study. That is the initial argument we heard in regard to universities, but now the hon the Minister says that throughout the years the Afrikaans-medium universities have been neglecting their duty because we have allowed English-speaking people to liberalise the Black people.

Does the hon the Minister know what I heard from New Zealand? The Maori’s, even those who have intermingled with the Whites, are now saying after all these years, now that the Maori’s have virtually been wiped out, that they want the Maori culture and the Maori language restored. I now want to put a few questions to the hon the Minister. What percentage of technikon students must now be non-Whites? Does that percentage affect the character and essence of the White technikons? Let us suppose that 10% of the students are Black and 10% Coloured, or that more or less 15% of the students are non-Whites, does the hon the Minister want to tell me that the Afrikaans tertiary institutions are going to have such an influence on that percentage of students that they are going to become NP supporters? What about the other 80% who are not students of technikons?

The argument which the hon the Minister put forward here about students at the tertiary institutions is an old PFP standpoint, i.e. that one can incline people to one’s own persuasion by drawing them into one’s own ranks. That is fundamentally unsound. That 10% or 15% of the Blacks are being permitted to join us, not because they will eventually be serving their own communities, but because in this case the Afrikaners want to influence them. What kind of influence must that be?

The hon the Minister must really go back—I almost wanted to say come round—to the principles underlying our education here in South Africa.

We are going to vote against the Bill because the hon the Minister’s points of departure are wrong. He says we are merely hawking the term “power-sharing” about and talking about it too much. If one shares power, one loses power. If power is shared in the field of education—this includes the tertiary field, that of technikon education—one loses the power one has to regulate one’s own affairs. Eventually it will be a question of the non-Whites and, in many respects too, the trends of thought of the English liberals, a field in which the PFP already has control. Ultimately the Afrikaners will have to look to the interests of the whole and not those of specific elements.

In the light of that, let me tell the hon the Minister what his colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, said to an audience of Stellenbosch students, and that is that the particular should be subservient to the whole. Let me tell the hon the Minister that these ideas of his are simply not going to work, in practice, in South Africa. They will work for a while until the sweet coating of the power-sharing pill has melted on the tongue and then one will come back to the bitter reality when the hon the Minister’s education policy comes into conflict with the reality of the diversity of peoples in Southern Africa.

That is why I want to tell the hon the Minister that he must get back to the basis of the old NP’s educational standpoints, and I again want to refer him to those debates conducted here in 1967 under the auspices of the late Senator De Klerk. Then the hon the Minister would again pick up the threads that have slipped through his fingers in the interim.

Mr Chairman, please allow me to extend a few words of appreciation to hon members who congratulated me on the new task entrusted to me in this House. I want to thank them sincerely for that.

As far as this Bill is concerned, however, I do want to discuss matters with the hon member for Rissik. Let me concede at once that this hon member does still adhere to the standpoints he maintained ten years ago. [Interjections.] Since we are dealing with a related groups of measures, and not individual pieces of legislation, I want to discuss that with him. He will remember that in 1978 we were members of a group which also included a few Ministers such as Dr Koornhof, Mr Marais Steyn, Mr Hennie Smit, Mr Cruywagen and the hon member for Waterberg and which held certain discussions.

One of the discussions was with the late Prof H B Thom. It took place in Pretoria and dealt with the students of colour at tertiary institutions—then, in particular, at universities. I want to quote a single passage from the minutes—the hon member for Rissik ought to have these minutes:

He is the hon member for Waterberg and the leader of that party—

That is not the double-talk of our Minister. Here we have a Deputy Minister at that time expressing this idea. [Interjections.]

There is nothing wrong with that.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with that, but what is the inherent substance of this?

Everything is wrong with it.

As far as the hon member is concerned, this document…

You people did not want me…

No, you are in trouble, Daan!

The hon member is in a bit of a jam now.

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

No, Sir, I must complete my argument. Again I come to the hon member. It is a very emphatic statement, and I again want to repeat this little sentence. It concerns non-Whites at universities and, in particular, at Afrikaans universities:

I agree with that.

Right, but that is precisely what we are doing. [Interjections.] During that same discussion—the hon member for Rissik knows this very well, and I honestly believe that he would not label the late Prof Thom, who was chairman of the Committee of University Principals at the time, a liberal…

I disagreed with him… [Interjections.]

Yes, but let me make it very clear now. The hon member for Rissik said that the hon the Minister was again quoting a thoroughly Prog argument. [Interjections.] Sir, I do not want to make the situation difficult for you, but this is a matter of tertiary education.

Let us just see what Prof Thom said in that summary of five main points. In the first place a university is a place of knowledge. I am not going to elaborate on that. Secondly a university must be ethnically orientated. I want to say that emphatically. Thirdly a university is an mirror image of a specific society. Universities are the property of the nation; the funds come from the State and it should be expected that in the students we will find a cross-section of society, with all its virtues and vices. The differences of opinion encountered within any society will also be encountered in the university.

Fourthly it is impossible to cater for all branches of study to all universities. Here one has in mind the scarcity of high-level manpower. The late Prof Thom quoted medicine as a good example, because in this case the manpower situation is aggravated by the emigration of doctors. Fifthly the costs involved in providing the same facilities at different universities makes this impossible.

In the sixth place—the hon member for Rissik must listen to this argument. [Interjections.] Excuse me, Sir, but I must quote this, because in his argument the hon member took a swipe at the hon the Minister. According to Prof Thom there is no danger, in the fact that non-White students study only at English-language universities, of educated non-Whites being estranged from the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] So it is appropriate for provision to be made at Afrikaans-medium universities for non-Whites studying in fields not offered at their own universities. Then the learned Prof Thom concludes with the following:

We do not disagree with that at all.

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

No, Mr Chairman. Let me just complete my argument.

We have had these arguments for a long time now. The hon member for Rissik knows that after these discussions in August, on 8 September of that year, we held discussions with a large number of rectors of various universities. I drew up the minutes of those meetings and discussions. The hon member for Rissik has a copy. The hon member must read what we and those people said in our discussions with one another.

I have to tell the hon member for Rissik, who is now accusing the hon the Minister of double-talk or of using Prog arguments, that statement is not true. [Interjections.] We are dealing with a need that goes back a long way, and even if the hon member disagrees radically with this, it is wrong to accuse us of presenting Prog arguments. That hon member’s leader said that we would have to make provision for meeting certain needs at tertiary level. I leave the hon member for Rissik at that.

I agree with his criticism of the hon member for Bryanston’s argument, ie that technikons do not offer attenuated fields of study, specifically just the technical or technological fields. That is not true. If that is what the hon member for Bryanston says, he has not even taken the trouble to look at a technikon prospectus. There is a broad field of subjects, including subjects in the social sciences and human sciences, which are of great importance. This fact is at odds with the hon member for Bryanston’s standpoint about technikons offering only technical fields of study.

I now want to come back to the contribution of the hon member for Sasolburg, who also had an opportunity to discuss these related pieces of legislation in the debates. I have the hon member’s speech here. He stated that it did not make the slightest difference to him what the norms and standards of certification of the students of other population groups were. It does not matter to him what standards and what certificates are available to those students.

[Inaudible.]

No.

Let me say this to the hon member for Sasolburg: In the human sciences the study material, field of investigation, syllabuses and so on will, in the case of each population group, be ego-centred; in other words, they will centre on each group’s specific lebensraum, ethnic context and so on. That is true, but now I want to point out something else to the hon member. Specifically in that field we must carefully read and take note of what is in their heart of hearts. We must do so, because we are partners, or let us say neighbours, in this country in which we are all living. We must take note of that, and that is something I want to tell the hon member for Sasolburg.

The hon member for Sasolburg also expressed his concern about the fine work Raka being offensive. I want to point out to the hon member that Dr Mopeli, the Chief Minister of Qwaqwa, has a degree in Afrikaans and that his main thesis was on N P van Wyk Louw’s Raka. The work as such does not give offence.

If in the social or the human sciences, in the spheres of their development, one also reads about the concerns of those people, if one reads their poetry, one knows what is going on in their hearts. One must not try to gauge their heartache and bitterness by referring solely to the newspapers. Read their poetry too.

As far as the other sciences are concerned, for example the natural sciences, it is vital for us to have the same norms and standards. The Coloured, White and Black students are going to compete in the same markets. Therefore the employer must know exactly which man to appoint.

I want to come back to the legislation. The Bill before us now makes provision for three simple amendments to the principal Act, ie in regard to membership of the Committee of Technikon Principals—we are very grateful for the fact that those people can have full representation and membership of that body—the regulation of the functions of the committee regarding conditions attaching to standards for admission, and also provision for the self-governing states to be able to arrange for co-operation between technikons. I think the committee will be enhanced by these measures. Opportunities are thereby being extended, and this could only be to the benefit of our technikons.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is very similar to the one concerning universities, where the Committee of University Principals has been increased to include all the other universities. In the case of the technikons, one has membership of the Committee of Technikon Principals by Indian and Black universities. It has the same object in view. It is entirely a benign one as far as this party is concerned and one which is entirely desirable having as it does the possibility for a great deal of interaction among the various technikons and in all fields of technikon education.

*I must say that when one listens firstly to the argument of the hon member of Rissik against the hon member for Bryanston, and then to the hon member for Standerton, it is really difficult to find a little place in this House for the old English-speaking person.

You can always join the CP! [Interjections.]

He attacked the hon member for Bryanston, who is just as Afrikaans as he is, and then repeated the same old story over and over again, and that is precisely the problem we on this side of the House have. As soon as we start talking about nationalists, they assume we are attacking the Afrikaners.

I want to return to the remark the hon the Minister made in the House the other day.

I hope the hon the Minister listens. May we have his attention? [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister said something here about my approach to the Afrikaner. I have lost my letter.

Ask the hon the Minister to listen first, because otherwise you will be wasting your breath. He just sits there and chatters away. He does not listen; he is not interested. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for King William’s Town may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I merely want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to this letter. He says that, just like my leader, I have a hang-up about the Afrikaners. I did not take him very seriously, but I think this is a good opportunity to say something about that, because my hon leader wrote a fine letter to Die Burger, in which the matter is put very nicely as far as we are concerned. I should like to read it to the hon the Minister and the House. It reads as follows:

Order! I hope all this is relevant to the Bill under consideration.

Certainly, Sir. It deals with a point concerning the various perceptions as far as education and technikons in particular are concerned. I continue:

I must return to the legislation, Sir. I must concede that as far as this Bill is concerned, the NP are taking them into account in their policy to some extent.

It is clear, therefore, that as far as the Afrikaner is concerned, we are great friends. We are fond of him, just as we are fond of all the other people in the country.

Please do not insult us English in that way! [Interjections.]

We are talking about politics here. The issue is not the Afrikaner’s political approach to matters, not his Afrikanerdom, culture, language and all those aspects. [Interjections.] We are merely attacking an incorrect political approach to South Africa’s future. Nationalism is the heart of that system and that is what I spoke about, and I hope the hon the Minister will take cognisance of this standpoint and of that of the hon leader of the NRP, since it reflects my own standpoint clearly. I am very grateful that the Chair has given me the opportunity to read the letter in the House.

Mr Chairman, I am glad we have finished with the ayatollahs, the English and the Afrikaners and are back to technikons.

The hon member for Standerton has indicated what is actually involved in this legislation. The gist of this afternoon’s debate should basically be related solely to the admission of the only group which has thus far been excluded from the Committee of Technikon Principals, that of the rectors of Black technikons. This Bill is now making that possible. In their arguments about this legislation, hon members tried to see whether we could not find a point of dispute somewhere.

The question, however, is why a Committee of Technikon Principals convenes. I asked certain former rectors what they did in such a committee and what they discussed at such meetings. The reply was that one of the committee’s major tasks initially was the problem of funding—the amount advocated by the department, how that should be distributed and what matters should be considered as priorities. That was actually one of the major reasons why the Committee of Technikon Principals had to convene.

An educational institution which has an individual character, whether it is autonomous or not, is not going to put its cards on the table at a meeting of such a Committee of Technikon Principals and indicate what its successes and achievements are and what there is to brag and carry on about. For those people the matters involved are matters of common interest to them. So what is involved is a question of funding. They will argue about which students they should admit to the institutions, for the sake of their standards and “uniformity”—I am placing “uniformity” in quotation marks because institutions do not necessarily want to be the same. It would be a theme that could be discussed. They would also speak, of course, about standards and about courses—subjects affecting all of them. In this regard they generally have a great deal in common. In fact, they could also learn a great deal from one another. At meetings of this kind, autonomy, the character or whatever of a specific technikon is not at issue at all. Nor is it a question of the content of the courses offered by a specific technikon. All these matters are and continue to be unique to each specific institution. No principal or rector of a technikon would allow the domestic affairs of his institution to be discussed by others at such a meeting of rectors. After all, those matters are unique to every specific technikon and changes are purely and simple the problems of each specific technikon.

So all that the legislation under discussion is doing is to grant the rectors of all technikons in South Africa representation and the right of vote at joint meetings. It also affects the true matters which the hon member for Standerton raised here and which are actually not at issue. If the rectors of technikons of the national or independent states, however, were desirous of becoming involved in this, the relevant Ministers could, by way of an agreement, make the necessary arrangements in regard to such a matter. That is what the legislation under discussion is, in fact, all about. I am very grateful for the fact that we can now deal with it here. Apart from minor efforts to look for arguments with which to attack this legislation, there is not really any valid criticism that can be levelled at this measure, and I am grateful for the fact that we have now reached the stage of being able to continue with the matters focussed upon by the legislation under discussion. It cannot but be in the interests of our country, and I feel that we are hereby creating an opportunity for the rectors of all the technikons in South Africa to find the best possible means of promoting the technological development of this country.

Last but not least, I want to put a request to the hon the Minister. It is surely necessary for us to give these people a clearer picture of the road they have to travel. I feel that there is going to be a greater need for more technikons in the future. I therefore hope the hon the Minister will consider undertaking some or other promotion with a view to further stimulating people’s interest in the training offered by technikons. I am really worried about the great number of people lost to our labour force at our universities. So many students attend universities when, in actual fact, they ought to have gone to technikons from the start. There is, of course, a certain phase that every people goes through—a phase in which it tries to play the highest trumps in the pack, to reach the highest goals. I think we have now passed that phase, however. I think there is now such a strong need for people who have been trained at technikons that we really should further propagate this matter—in our schools too—whilst at the same time allowing these people to come into their own so that they can succeed in the long run in satisfying the great need that exists in South Africa for manpower that has the necessary skills of a technikon training. It therefore gives me great pleasure to give my wholehearted support to the Bill under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I believe it is necessary to reassure the hon the Minister that we in the PFP will in fact be supporting this measure. Irrespective of whatever impression the hon the Minister might have gained listening to the speech of the hon member for Bryanston, he was indeed speaking in support of the Bill.

I must say he was somewhat vague about what he actually meant.

What I wish to do, therefore, is merely to pursue somewhat further one or two of the points that have been made in the debate so far, and to emphasise that I do believe that the Government have not sat down and done their homework in connection with the place of technikons in our society.

What I found particularly interesting, Sir, was that the hon member for Standerton took part in this debate. He quoted Prof Thom for the edification of the Conservative Party. Forgive me, Mr Chairman, but I too want to quote Prof Thom for the edification of the hon member for Standerton. I quote from a speech he delivered at the Vaaldriehoek Technikon in 1978 on the subject of technikon education. In his speech Prof Thom referred to the following passage from the Van Wyk De Vries Report, and I quote:

He goes on to make the point quite clearly that universities and technikons differ in their end purpose. One is neither better nor worse than the other, he says, and they must exist in parallel. The point Prof Thom makes quite clearly—the hon member for Bryanston also made this point—is that the relationship between the technikon and industry and commerce in South Africa is a very close, very intimate one, and also a very practical one. All these arguments that we have had thrown around between the CP and the NP, namely that there is a “kulturele inhoud” in technikons, just does not wash. They simply do not wash.

I want to quote again from the same book, which is, by the way, a report of the proceedings of a congress on research and development in higher tertiary education, held at the University of the Orange Free State in 1980. I quote Dr Roe Venter. Dr Venter said that, in planning for universities—I think, however, that the point has been made that this also affects technikons—

What he is in fact saying, then, is that there must be no discontinuity between the institutions. That is the point my colleague, the hon member for Bryanston, was making: The relationship between the technikon, the university, the technical college and the other tertiary training institutions—training colleges, nursing colleges, and so on—must be one of a totality.

Now, how does the hon the Minister react to this? He quotes section 25(2), the section that deals with admission of students. Fine, that is in the Act and we grant him that. However, Sir, as far as section 25(2) of the Universities Act is concerned, every Minister, including the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly, has stated that he will turn a blind eye to it, that he will not apply it. The hon the Minister said so during the debate on the Universities Amendment Bill. So why does the hon the Minister not turn a blind eye in the case of the technikons?

According to the figures I have—they are applicable until the end of 1984 and I understand they are the latest available—the number of so-called “non-Whites” attending the nine White technikons in South Africa are as follows: 331 Coloureds, 275 Indians and 182 Blacks. That is the total number of “non-Whites” in all the White technikons in the whole of South Africa. I must say, Sir, that I actually do not believe that the fundamental principles that Dr Venter indicated we should be observing, are being observed. There is one technikon for Coloureds, in the Peninsula; there is one technikon for Indians, in Durban; and there are two technikons for Blacks in the whole of South Africa, one north of Pretoria and one in Umlazi, near Durban.

I do not care what is going on, but unless we use the White technikons for so-called “non-White” students, we simply do not have sufficient technikons to meet the technological needs of this country. We need technicians. We no longer need so many engineers. Instead, we need a heck of a lot more technicians.

We do not need robots, we need human people.

I agree with the hon member.

As I was saying, we need a whole lot more technicians from those technikons. [Interjections.]

I would earnestly request, therefore, that this hon Minister, in co-operation with his colleagues, the other hon Ministers of executive departments, agree that, as in the case of the universities, they will in future turn a blind eye to the admission of so-called “non-White” students to technikons for as long as the quota clause remains on the Statute Book. Admission has to be granted to them, and very rapidly indeed. I do believe that we have to develop the status of technikons in this country, that they have to be run in parallel with universities as fully autonomous institutions, and that it is only in that way—and by developing the technikon and the whole ethos of the technikon—that we can proceed. One of the examples set by the polytechnic education in Britain is that of the granting of degrees by the so-called technikons. That may not be—I want to indicate that to the hon the Minister quite clearly—the right approach. There has in fact been much severe questioning concerning the granting of degrees by polytechnics. However, we must grant autonomy and status to those institutions.

Finally, turning to the Bill, I have two specific questions for the hon the Minister. I want to refer firstly to the proposed section 28(7) as contained in clause 2(d) of the Bill. In terms of that subsection a majority of two-thirds is required for a decision by the new Committee of Technikon Principals, which will embrace all the technikons in South Africa—those of the Department of Education and Development Aid that are now being added are therefore included. I may have a suspicious mind, but why is a majority of two-thirds necessary? Is there any particular reason why it cannot be a straight majority?

The last question is probably the most important of all. Clause 4 grants a national state a participatory right. The only technikon they are addressing is the Mangosuthu Technikon in Umlazi which falls within kwaZulu. I understand there is a question regarding the funding of that institution. If the hon the Minister cannot address me on that now, it is a matter we can perhaps take up later. However, I understand that there may be a problem because they have been given what virtually amounts to the status of a full technikon in the South African context, but in reality they have a different funding basis because they are a technikon in a national state. I understand their Sapse formula is different. I would like the hon the Minister to address this matter.

This is the last of the technikon Bills that we will be talking about and I want to stress that we on these benches believe that technikon education is extremely important and that it has not attained its rightful place in this country at the moment. All the literature indicates that is the feeling of technikon and other educational authorities themselves. We believe that this Bill represents a movement forward because a colour-blind eye is now turned on the Committee of Technikon Principals. We therefore support it, but we urgently ask the hon the Minister to look at technikon education in totality and make the necessary arrangements so that technikons can gain their autonomy.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Standerton quoted here from a record which he kept of the statements made by Ministers and Deputy Ministers who were responsible for different education departments in the past. Amongst other things, he referred to a statement made by the hon member for Waterberg when he was still a Deputy Minister. He was to have said that the Afrikaans universities must demonstrate goodwill towards students of colour. To me, not having had a look at those records, the emphasis here falls on the question of goodwill. The hon member for Standerton also said it means the enrolment of students. Surely that is not what goodwill means! Goodwill can also mean that one is amicably disposed towards those people and that, amongst other things, one is prepared to make available to them the academic knowledge which one has as a White.

You are now being tortuous in your argument.

Goodwill, however, does not have to mean—neither do I think it means—that they should be absorbed. That is why I am convinced when analysing what the hon member for Waterberg supposedly said, that this really is not the conclusion one can come to.

The hon member for Standerton also refers to certain statements made by Prof Thom. Prof Thom was respected rector at a respected university, but surely his statements were not endorsed by every member of the National Party at that time. I am absolutely convinced of the fact that there were hon NP members who disagreed with certain of Prof Thom’s statements.

On the other hand I am very familiar with the statements of another respected former rector at a second respected university, ie Prof Hamman of the University of Pretoria. I want to ask the hon member for Standerton if he would agree with this rector if I had to start quoting what he had to say about teaching and education in his day. I think he would probably differ with some of those standpoints. I therefore do not think one should quote a rector here without any further ado and then absolutise his standpoints as if everyone accepts them. In the same way we CP members can also name rectors who have adopted and stated standpoints which we on this side of the House accept and which the hon members on the other side would not accept.

Like the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid about the homelands!

I just want to leave the hon member for Standerton at that for the moment. He reacted to the hon member for Bryanston who certainly pleaded for the opening of technikons. The hon member for Gezina said he was against the opening of technikons because there are technikons for the other groups. He then said that instead of sharing them with all population groups, even more technikons for the other groups can be established. He therefore said one should establish more technikons for them, but one should not open one’s own technikons to the other groups and share it with them.

I then told myself that this is exactly the standpoint which I adopted in 1983 and 1984 in this House when we debated the matter of technikons and universities at that time. I then adopt the standpoint that we, instead of opening our universities and technikons, should create more universities and technikons for the people of colour.

The Minister involved at the time then came along with the argument about where we would find all the staff, facilities and buildings. He also asked where we would obtain all the necessary administration and finance. He said we would still have the situation where certain subjects could not be offered by certain universities and therefore even more would have to be shared.

Now I simply ask: Is what the hon member for Gezina said the NP’s standpoint? Is it the standpoint of the NP that technikons should not be shared and opened, but that new technikons should rather be built to create adequate facilities for the people of colour? If this is so, I endorse every word spoken by the hon member for Gezina. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Gezina unfortunately went and spoilt all the fine things which he said by saying that he supports the amendment of the Committee of Technikon Principals, as embodied in this Bill.

The hon the Minister must listen carefully now. The purpose, as I read it in the Bill and as the hon the Minister put it previously, is that the Committee of Technikon Principals can prescribe the standards of admission to technikons and can give approval for the certificates of the SA Certification Council to be endorsed to indicate that candidates comply with these requirements. This is therefore a standard for uniformity.

But with what purpose is this being done? The hon the Minister again emphasised it with the previous Bill. The aim is to give people certificates of equal value for the purposes of the labour market. The purpose is to provide the labour force with an equal standard of training. It therefore concerns the labour force exclusively.

We are now working with admission standards to the institution. This is something else.

Eventually it all concerns the labour market. For what other reason are people being trained? Why then are standards for admission to training being created with certification at the end of the process if it were not so that they enter the labour market? The whole purpose behind this activity is therefore the labour market where they are going to compete with each other.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that I understand that this has to be the purpose he has in mind with all this legislation, in terms of his policy of one undivided South Africa, of one nation and of one citizenship with equal rights, opportunities and so forth. I understand that if this is what the hon the Minister wants to create and train these people for and prepare them for the labour market, he must follow that course, but the CP rejects it. The CP rejects one undivided South Africa, one nation, one citizenship for all and equal rights and opportunities within the White South Africa which we advocate and in which the Whites alone exercise authority. [Interjections.]

We certainly do believe in co-operation between Black and White states on matters of communal economic and other interests without adversely affecting each other’s sovereignity for the purpose of advancing and ensuring the development and security of all states. This is the standpoint of the CP. This is our policy of partition and separation of land and of races and peoples, so that there can be a White state in which the Whites alone exercise authority. Within that White state the Whites will exercise authority as to how things will be run. This policy also specifies that the Whites will enjoy priority in the labour sphere.

This is not suppression.

He is specifying the question of job reservation and how the non-Whites who are there and those who have the status of migrant labourers will be accommodated in the labour market.

The policy standpoint to which I referred just now, was the old NP’s policy. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who is looking at me like that, said this himself. A White South Africa in which the Whites alone exercise authority was his policy too, but the hon the Minister says there was never anything like a White South Africa. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I enjoy fighting with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning about these issues, because he does not like the things which he stood for in the past either. He simply says they did not exist.

In terms of the CP’s policy on constitutional matters, peoples, and the economy, it has to reject this Bill. In the nature of things it cannot approve it, because if we were to approve it now and we came into power tomorrow, the CP would be saddled with this thing which is in conflict with its policy. [Interjections.] The CP is therefore not prepared to approve the Bill. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Koedoespoort tried to qualify the goodwill which, according to the hon member for Waterberg, should be shown to non-White students by the Afrikaans universities, by saying it did not mean admission. I should like to ask the hon member for Koedoespoort how one shows goodwill at an Afrikaans university in regard to, let us say, a Black student who wants to study veterinary science?

Medunsa has such a faculty.

I am referring to 1978, before Medunsa existed.

It does exist now.

Let us rather say metallurgical engineering.

Any branch of engineering!

I could also refer to postgraduate studies in a very specialised field of physics.

There are many ways of doing that.

How does one show goodwill if they do not have their own faculty or department? [Interjections.] He will have to do the course at another university. That is why the hon member for Waterberg granted many permits during his term as Deputy Minister, because a permit system still applied then. [Interjections.] That is a way of showing goodwill: One accommodates the Black students. It only concerns the question of why they were only accommodated by English language universities during the past, and not by Afrikaans language Universities as well. I said that one of the reasons why I am in favour of them being accommodated at Afrikaans-language universities as well, is so that we do not just leave them in the hands of Wits and the University of Cape Town where a specific atmosphere prevails which has a particular psychological influence on students. I prefer the more balanced approach—when it comes to the atmosphere absorbed on campuses—which is also absorbed at the Afrikaans-language universities.

That is a poor reason.

We may differ about this, but that is why I went to my university and the hon member to his.

That is correct.

The hon member was happy with that and that is why he went there. Of course that is not to say that many good Nationalists have not come from the ranks of the Ikeys. There are quite a few on this side…

That is why the hon the Minister is still verkramp.

… and it just shows what power they had to withstand that political atmosphere. [Interjections.]

Goodwill can be demonstrated in various ways, and I concede this, but one of those ways is to allow such students to attend courses at the specific university which is involved then. If it is an Afrikaans university, then it is an Afrikaans university!

There are other reasons why it is sometimes necessary for it to also be an Afrikaans-language university. Some lecturers give a particular emphasis to the discipline which they teach. If one looks at a subject such as philosophy, the hon member for Rissik would immediately concede that one could then also deal with particular accepted premises. If a Coloured therefore comes along and says that he does not like the liberalness of A, B or C who lectures there and that he would like to study philosophy within the framework of a particular philosophical approach to life…

Why would he want to do that?

Yes, the hon member is making a petty political capital out of this …

Perhaps that person is even a supporter of the CP!

… but in the final analysis, in paragraph 14 of the Constitution and also as far as technikons are concerned, it concerns the provision of service, and the hon member should not cut himself off mentally from the opportunity of providing that service. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik now asks how open I want them to be. I now have to give a percentage. He then also still slips in the question of how open I want the schools to be. He knows that I have drawn a very clear distinction which he is now conveniently ignoring.

And private schools?

Private schools are own institutions which people run themselves, and we have given a clear exposition of our policy on private schools.

As far as I am concerned how open an institution is, is irrelevant. I attached a very important qualification to that, but the hon member says it is just a little tail. This side of the House, however, regards it as a premise. We say tertiary institutions are associated with and orientated to communities of which the character is of importance, and I therefore say that a specific institution should never be opened in a way that would lead to its character being prejudiced. This is my personal opinion about the matter and I should therefore say that numbers should be kept within limits so that the basic character of the institution is not prejudiced or that its communal nature would not be disrupted.

There are practical problems, however, and I stated this by means of my first question. There are after all certain courses which are not offered. I repeat everything said by my predecessor. We cannot continue either to simply duplicate everything in South Africa, in an uncontrolled manner. There is an acute shortage of lecturers in certain disciplines and if one had to establish another three faculties for that same discipline, one would lower the standard in South Africa because one is not going to find lecturers who are sufficiently qualified at that level—particularly not in certain uncommon subjects. It simply does not make sense and one’s common sense tells one that one should adopt a practical approach to this. This same NP has admitted non-White students to institutions other than those that were established for them since 1948 for the same reason. This proved that it was necessary even within the hon member’s own idiom. I find this sudden rigorism of theirs in connection with this strange in view of the personal history of their leader. There are also human factors which particular circumstances make admission justifiable and fair and for which a case can be made. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Gezina, Standerton and Brentwood have once again given fine support and facilitated my task. The hon member for Brentwood asked me to respond to a statement of his that technikon education should be furthered. Yes, I agree. Technikons should be advanced, and the hon member can rest assured that the State will play its part.

In cases where technikons grow within a framework and are on the road to autonomy, they will however, like the universities as well, have to spread their wings and find support in the private sector, to which they are certainly more closely connected than is the case with universities. The private sector therefore has a very direct interest in the technikons. Industry has a very direct interest in technikons as far as students who are trained by the technikons are concerned. Therefore, while I agree that technikons should be furthered, and while I support this wholeheartedly, I ask that there should be a general involvement in that furthering and that they do not only look to the State in this regard.

The hon member for King William’s Town read a letter from Mr Bill Sutton. When I use the word “hang-up”, I do not mean that they do not care for the Afrikaners or do not respect them or that they despise the Afrikaners in any way. By reading that letter, the hon member showed that there are in fact hang-ups. References in the letter to “agter die wiele” and the “laer” were most probably used three times by Mr Bill Sutton in a session of Parliament. He analysed the Afrikaners in the same way as the hon member for King William’s Town did the other day. He asked us why we thought the way we did, why there was discord amongst us, and what should inspire us if we really wanted to come into our own.

That remains true!

No, the hon member has hang-ups about the Afrikaners. There are English Nationalists who think just as I do. [Interjections.] We do not believe in our political policy because we are Afrikaners, but because we believe that it is the only policy which could work in South Africa.

There are many Afrikaners who do not think so!

The hon member really should go and reconsider these things. He need not worry about us so much. We are merely good Nationalists. Naturally, those who are Afrikaans are Afrikaners, and those who are not Afrikaners, in turn, have a love of their own. In party politics, however, we believe in the policy stated by our chief leaders in this party because we believe that policy is in the best interest of everyone and that it is not in the interest of one section.

What policy is that now? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bryanston suggested that we should accept their advice. He said that if we did not do that, in years to come, when we come back here to change things, we would have to admit that we should have accepted their advice.

*If I have ever heard an admission from a front-bencher of a party that they have no hope of taking over the Government in the foreseeable future, this is it.

In spite of their declaration!

He is now telling us how over the years, when we are still governing, certain things will have to change. If someone has so few prospects, I must say it is probably very hard to be a member of the opposition. [Interjections.] He belongs to a party which is struggling to remain the Official Opposition Party and not to become an just opposition party.

They say something else in the declaration!

He lectured us on technikons, on whom they serve, and on the relationship between the technikon and its environment. We also know technikons. I served on the council of a technikon for a number of years. I do not think he has done so.

Me too.

Well, then we have more or less the same amount of knowledge. You do not have to give us a lecture on this.

However, what conclusion does he come to? He concludes that a technikon cannot have, must not have, nor should have a community-orientated or a culturally-orientated character. That is his conclusion.

But that is not true. Surely one cannot reduce a technikon to screws and test-tubes. It is after all not a factory. However difficult it may be for me, because we have differed a great deal, I must admit, however, that the hon member for Rissik gave the hon member for Bryanston a very good reply on this point.

We are dealing with people, are we not. Technikon campuses have residences now. Did the hon member not know this? They also have extramural activities which to a great extent are reflected and embedded in the multi-cultural nature of South Africa. Technikons should, in my view, really be humanised, if I may put it like that.

Why on the basis of race? Are Blacks not people too?

Yes.

Are they?

Yes, but…

Are you sure they are?

Yes, I have no problems with that. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if the hon member has a hang-up.

All people are not the same simply because they are people. How many Black members does his party have now? [Interjections.]

That has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. Why do they reject the PFP? They reject the PFP because they do not trust the PFP.

No, the point is: All Blacks who support our party’s principles may join.

Yes, but they do not do so. Why are there no Blacks who support the PFP’s principles? [Interjections.] Otherwise even those who share the PFP’s principles find the PFP unacceptable and they prefer their own institutions.

That is not true.

Of course. [Interjections.] To say that all people are the same because they are people…

No, they are not the same.

Very well, I thank the hon member for conceding this point. Because people differ from each other, they find that the more education becomes relevant, they have their own particular needs and it is precisely the differences between them which find special expression.

Mr Speaker, with reference to the principle and the standpoint of the hon the Minister that people differ from each other and therefore may not study together, may I ask how according to that principle, he is going to allow people of different ethnic groups to work close to each other and in co-operation with each other in the same place. He allows that, but they may not study together.

Studying does not only involve sitting in a desk and looking at a book. Studying also involves giving expression to one’s community life.

Work as well!

Yes, work as well, but that is why tremendous problems are being experienced by some employers who in an unjudicious way do not take the multicultural nature of their work force into account as well. [Interjections.] The hon member can go and look. I represent an industrial constituency. The hon member can go and look and he will see that foreign companies pay lipservice, but implement certain practices in their factories, because if they were not to do so there would be friction amongst their workers. He knows that what I am saying is true. [Interjections.]

All we are saying, is that those practices have to be resolved by the workers themselves because the Government does not have control over what happens on the workfloor in so many details.

We make the same distinction between tertiary institutions and schools. At tertiary institutions we say that we want to shift the responsibilities so that those people themselves can protect the community character. We had a lengthy argument about that when we discussed the university legislation, did we not?

Will they decide for themselves.

But I have stated the standpoint of this side of the House.

You will not interfere. They will decide for themselves?

I am not in the witness-box now; I am making a speech.

I put the standpoint very clearly, when I discussed the university legislation, that in regard to tertiary institutions specific legislation exists, that legislation should not be applied for the present and that the councils of these institutions should at the moment follow their own policy at university level.

I now want to address the hon member for Pinetown. He quotes a number of people of colour who attend White technikons, and then he draws a negative conclusion from that.

No.

I am pleased he says he did not. I was under the impression that he was drawing the conclusion that inadequate facilities are being provided at the technikon level to people of colour.

No, not at all.

As an educationist he knows that the problem in connection with technikons lies with the demand amongst people of colour. It does not involve the facilities. He knows that there are problems as far as subject choices at school is concerned. Students who have passed mathematics in the right grade, for example, are scarce. I am now speaking of students who want to follow specialised technikon and university training in the natural sciences directions. Surely the hon member knows they are scarce. [Interjections.]

We shall therefore continue to make provision; technikons must grow. As long as this Government is in power, and this party is in the majority here, we shall hold and apply the standpoint of wanting to allow the basic community-orientated institutions to develop. It is in fact our wish that the time will pass in which we in this House speak about Black education, technikons and universities, excepting where it concerns general facets of education. They themselves must decide about this. Here we must discuss the norms and standards for financing, so that everyone will be treated fairly. [Interjections.] We should discuss the norms and standards for certification and the drawing up of curriculums, so that equal standards can be ensured.

We are amending a general affairs Bill. It has the quota clause in it, and you can remove it.

Sir, the hon member knows that we have said here that the question of admission is an own affair, and that the own affairs Ministers will have to take the initiative if this has to be changed. I put this very clearly, did I not.

For the universities.

Yes, but surely the same applies in this case. Why would it be different in this case? Oh, Sir…

Because you are not giving the councils of the technikons the right to admit students!

No, the fact is that facet is an own affair in terms of our Constitution. [Interjections.] The hon member must not try to change the Constitution in a minor debate here; he has to convince people substantially to do this, if it is what he wants.

What about Schedule 1, paragraph 14? [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I just want to say, in regard to the hon member’s reference to Dr Roe Venter, that although what he quoted was completely correct, in my opinion it really is out of context as far as this debate we are having here is concerned.

The hon member asked me why there has to be a two thirds majority. There is a very important function which is being included in this respect, and that is the right of the institution to decide for itself on norms for admission. It is important that there should predominantly be unanimity about this. That alone is enough reason to prescribe a two thirds majority. With that we must ensure that a decision is not forced on to people on the basis of minor victories. People should therefore not be forced to reach concensus on this very important matter. Furthermore, because one is now finding for the first time that it is precisely people with divergent views in the technikons that are being brought together in one body, it is a good thing to ensure that everyone will have peace of mind that the domination of numbers will not in any way prejudice standards.

I think with that I have more or less dealt with everything, excepting the specific question concerning a specific technikon, of which I really do not have the facts with me. As the hon member for Pinetown knows, not one technikon falls directly under me. I do not control the technikons directly, and shall therefore have to obtain the information from the Minister involved or request him to give it to the hon member. It does not fall under my department.

Sir, having come to the end of a long series of debates, and you and your colleagues in the chair having given us the opportunity to delve a little more deeply into the philosophy of education—we are certainly dealing here with legislation which has very specific points of contact with each of the various parties’ particular approach to and philosophy on education—I want to thank hon members heartily for the spirit in which we could conduct this debate and for the in-depth discussion which we could have. Now that the political debate on this legislation is behind us, I want to say that we are entering a fundamentally new era with this legislation package in regard to very, very important matters in the sphere of normal education at school level, as well as in the sphere of tertiary education. In the light of this let me express the hope that putting this legislation into operation will not only be successful but that the realisation will also dawn on everyone who wants to politicise education, that despite political differences a new point of departure has been established, presenting opportunities which can be utilised.

The future of education will not be determined by our ability to make speeches and conduct debates in politics. The future of education will be determined by the ability of all who participate in it—children, parents, teachers, professors, ministers or whoever—to fully utilise every opportunity which is being created in the sphere of education for the benefit of the development of the full potential of this country.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz F Hartzenberg, F J le Roux, E M Scholtz, W J Snyman, L M Theunissen, A P Treurnicht, C Uys, H D K van der Merwe, J H van der Merwe, W L van der Merwe, F A H van Staden, J J B van Zyl and L F Stofberg) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

I indicated in Parliament on 17 May 1984 that the Government had accepted, in principle, the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Structure and Function of the Courts, ie the Hoexter Commission—ie that in the course of time one functionary be designated for the execution for all process of the courts. The Bill before us is aimed at giving effect to this recommendation.

In support of the principle of amalgamating the officers of deputy sheriff and messenger of the court and that of the establishment of a statutory controlling body for the office of sheriff, let me refer briefly to the following: Although there is no fundamental difference in the nature and complexity of the duties attaching to the offices in question, an appreciable difference in the conditions of service—including reimbursement, as prescribed by the rules of court of the various courts—has arisen over the years—a difference which can no longer be justified.

It appears further that the amalgamation of the two offices could make it more profitable to the holders of those offices and that the service and execution of the process of all courts would be dealt with more economically and therefore to the advantage of litigants owing to the greater volume involved. At various centres these two offices are already occupied by the same person. All the relevant incumbents have already been organised into associations and the transfer of additional self-administration appears the proper course to adopt.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides, amongst other things, for the Minister of Justice to appoint a person as sheriff to a lower or superior court. Different persons may still be appointed, as at present, for the various courts of law. The possibility is being created, however, for the same person to be appointed as sheriff of both a lower and a superior court. Two or more persons can be appointed as sheriff of the same court. In the course of time one functionary can therefore be appointed for the service of process of all courts of law. A transitional phase will, however, inevitably be necessary. These provisions will place me in a better position to serve the interests of all population groups and to regulate the areas of jurisdiction of the proposed sheriffs to everyone’s satisfaction.

With regard to the latter aspect, I intend to request the Department of Justice to determine certain criteria in accordance with which future appointments will be considered. In order to protect vested interests it is proposed in clause 64 that existing appointments of deputy sheriff and messenger of the court be deemed to be appointments in terms of the proposed sheriffs act.

In Chapter 2 of the Bill provision is made for the establishment of a Board for Sheriffs. The objects of the board are to maintain the prestige, enhance the status and improve the standard of training of sheriffs and the functions perform by them.

In terms of the provision of chapter 4 this board has the power to act against sheriffs who are guilty of improper conduct. This matter is fully dealt with in clauses 43 to 52. The control and management of a fidelity fund, which is basically the same as similar funds for attorneys and estate agents, for example, are entrusted to the Board for Sheriffs. Money in this fund will be employed to make good any losses or damages for which a sheriff or his deputy sheriff are legally liable.

Finally I should like to express my appreciation to all those interested parties who were involved in the preparation of the Bill. The Bill was preceded by lengthy negotiations between officials of my department the Federation of Messengers of Court, the Associations of Deputy Sheriffs and Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa and other interested parties. In particular, the Bill was given in-depth consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice, a facet I myself can vouch for. During all these negotiations and discussions significant proposals were made and amendments introduced, resulting in a Bill that can effectively be implemented in practice.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is the first of four Bills which are the responsibility of this hon Minister. This Bill was subjected to very careful scrutiny by the standing committee, and the measure we have before us today is in fact the product of consensus achieved on that standing committee.

Broadly speaking, the combination of the offices of Messenger of the Court and Deputy Sheriff should, in our view, result in certain major benefits. Firstly, as far as the public is concerned, it should result in a better professional service being developed since the board established in terms of this Bill will set certain standards to ensure professional integrity and will maintain discipline among the officers of the court concerned.

Secondly, as far as officials are concerned, there will be uniformity of employment conditions and remuneration packages and, therefore, better career opportunities. All in all, Sir, the further privatisation of these functions should benefit the efficient administration of the courts.

It should be noted in passing, however, that in terms of clause 2 of this Bill it is the prerogative of the Minister to appoint sheriffs from time to time. In terms of clause 64(2) of the Bill any person who immediately prior to the commencement of the Act held office as messenger or as deputy sheriff shall be deemed to have been appointed as a sheriff. This will ensure continuity of service from the inception of the new arrangement.

In this connection I should like to remind the House and the hon the Minister in particular of the point that we on these benches raised earlier during this session when the hon the Minister’s Budget Vote was discussed. It related to the way that we believe a number of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa perceive the administration of justice here. It was then and is still our view that where there is a lack of confidence in the system of justice it came about in some measure because of the virtually all-White appearance of the persons dispensing justice and because of the lack of participation of people of colour in the activities of the department. The hon the Minister will recall that point having been raised particularly by my colleague the hon member for Sandton during the discussion of the hon the Minister’s Budget Vote.

This matter was again raised on the standing committee. The hon the Minister gave those of us on the standing committee to understand that when he delivered his Second Reading Speech introducing this measure he would state that appointments would be made without reference to colour or race in regard to this particular measure. In particular, we wanted the assurance that appointments would take into account the racial balance and would be fair to all communities. At the present time nearly all the incumbents of these offices are White, and very few, if any, persons of colour have been appointed. If the present situation is perpetuated, the brethren of sheriffs around South Africa, like many other bodies, will be virtually all-White, and non-Whites will be largely excluded from these opportunities. I must say that when I read the hon the Minister’s Second Reading Speech, I found no assurance on this issue despite our understanding on the standing committee. I hope the hon the Minister, when he replies to this debate, will use the opportunity to address this particular issue.

We would like to know, first of all, what his attitude is in regard to appointments to this office and to the board; and secondly, we should like to know how he intends to redress the existing racial imbalance which exists around the country in respect of these offices.

Finally, the other provisions contained in this measure are of a technical nature and are unexceptional, and so they require very little comment.

With those remarks, we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to thank the hon member for Berea for his support of the Bill under discussion. I truly believe that the State President and the Cabinet announced salary increases for members of Parliament just in time; otherwise hon members today—or perhaps in a month or two—would have been far better informed regarding the task and the functions related to the post of the sheriff and the messenger of the court.

We find the term “messenger of the court”, which is now to disappear after the acceptance of this measure, as early as in Act No 32 of 1917—the then Magistrates’ Courts Act which is still worded in Dutch. This was replaced, also by an Act No 32, but this time an Act of 1944. Therefore we are actually making history now by putting into operation the measure under discussion in the term “messenger of the court” is now to disappear. As hon members are aware the messenger of the court was the man charged with the execution and service of process, and he fell under the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court—in the old days, of course, the magistrates’ office. In the case of liquid cases in which the amount involved did not exceed R10 000, and in illiquid cases in which the amount involved did not exceed R5 000, the service of process was undertaken by the messenger of the court. The deputy sheriff was then responsible for the same task as far as the Supreme Court was concerned.

Since 1917—and of course particularly since 1944—there were three kinds of messengers. There was the private messenger, whom we know, who operates in small towns as well as in certain parts of our cities. Then there was the contract messenger, and later also the Public Service messenger. These messengers of the court, and the organisation to which they belonged, over the past seven years has fairly often addressed representations to the Department of Justice for these posts—that of messenger of the court as well as that of deputy sheriff—to be properly regulated. Particularly since the publication of the Hoexter Commission Report, the department could with greater certainty approach the bodies involved that had an interest in this matter. There were wide-ranging consultations. The organisations consulted were the magistrates, the registrars of the Supreme Court, the General Bar Council, the Association of Law Societies, as well as the Federation of Messengers of the Court and the South African Association of Deputy Sheriffs.

At the very beginning, when this Bill first saw the light of day, people reacted and commented fairly tentatively. I believe, however, that after the final sitting of the Standing Committee on Justice one could say that consensus had been reached and that this Bill was indeed now the product of intensive research. The result of putting this measure into operation will be that the post of messenger of the court will disappear. Allow me, however, immediately to explain specifically what this actually involves. I take it that other hon members have also already received telephone calls from their constituency from people labouring under a misapprehension in this regard. Messengers of the court are wrongly under the impression that their posts will be repealed by this measure. They believe that when this legislation is put into effect, their posts will no longer exist. This, however, is indeed not the case. All that is happening is that the term or the official title of “messenger of the court” is being changed to that of “sheriff’. It is nevertheless important to note that clause 64(2) of the Bill makes specific provision for people now holding such a post to stay on as messengers of the court, albeit with another official title—sheriff or, in certain cases, acting sheriff and in certain other cases, deputy sheriff.

A second provision that is also very important and what those occupying one of these posts would like to have written into the legislation, is the institution of a board. The description of this particular board is very short and to the point, but nevertheless most important because it embraces exactly what those holding these posts have wanted so much over the years. The objects of the Board shall be the maintenance of the esteem of, the enhancement of the status of, and the improvement of the standard of training of and functions performed by, sheriffs. Members of that board will also be responsible for advising the Minister when regulations are issued. It is most important for this board, which is made up of sheriffs, to arrange its own sphere of interest and also to make a contribution in respect of the specifying of regulations.

I believe the next amendment is the institution of a fund. The messenger of the court is at present responsible for a certain safeguard, for example, assurance. A fidelity fund is now being created. This fund, too, will be under the jurisdiction of this board. This field of the administration of justice within the area of jurisdiction of South Africa will therefore be arranged in such a way that these people will be able to look after their own interests and also be able to determine their own status. The hon the Minister will first have to set the board in motion before he is able to take decisions on regulations. I want to make an appeal for him and this board to act as a stimulus so that those holding the post of sheriff will strive to improve their qualifications to such an extent that they may truly be proud to hold the post of sheriff. In this connection one thinks of the possibility of instituting a diploma course. This kind of qualification could possibly be obtained at a technikon but also by correspondence. Perhaps in this way this particular post could also be developed and become a profession in its own right.

I therefore believe that this Bill, which assured its present form over a period of seven years, and which consists of approximately 66 clauses, represents a great improvement in respect of this specific post within the administration of justice in South Africa. I therefore support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, in the world of the legal practitioner the names “messenger of the court” and “sheriff” or “deputy sheriff” have a particular significance. In the minds of the members of the legal profession the posts of messenger of the court and sheriff form a most important part—an almost indispensable part—of the legal disciplines in our country. The legal machinery in our country cannot and could not function meaningfully without these two essential gears. In the lives of some ordinary people the name “messenger of the court” or “sheriff” sometimes has an alarming meaning. For the man that comes into conflict with the law, or for the man expecting a visit from the messenger of the court or the deputy sheriff owing to his contractual default, the people occupying these posts are not welcome visitors. I hasten to say, however, that we in South Africa can regard ourselves as fortunate that over the years there have been thousands occupying these posts who have helped justice to be done in our country. Today we have reached a particular milestone in the existence of these professions. Therefore the CP, too, wants to pay tribute to the thousands of people who have occupied these important posts over the years. For this reason we welcome the legislation before us, which contributed to giving the office of sheriff its present form. The coming into being of this legislation was to a large extent initiated by the Federation of Messengers of the Court. This body requested a long time ago that a statutory body be instituted to exercise control over the functions of messengers of the court and deputy sheriffs. They also pleaded for the establishment of a fidelity fund to eliminate risks and damage caused by neglectful or other actions by deputy sheriffs and messengers of the court. It has all these years been the goal and the desire of all deputy sheriffs and messengers of the court that the esteem and the standard of training and functions of these professional men should be improved. The hon the Minister of Justice can therefore freely carry out the wishes of the deputy sheriffs and messengers of the court by submitting this Bill.

The Bill before us does several things. It stipulates that the former posts of deputy sheriff and of messenger of the court will now be replaced by a post that includes both of the previous posts, namely that of sheriff. Messengers of the court were previously appointed by the Minister of Justice by virtue of the authority vested in him. Section 14 of the Magistrates’ Court Act, 1944, afforded the Minister the authority to make those appointments. Messengers of the court executed all the civil directives with which they were charged by the magistrate’s courts. Deputy sheriffs were also previously appointed by the Minister of Justice by virtue of the authority vested in him by section 34 of the Supreme Court Act, 1959. Deputy sheriffs carried out all the commands with which they were charged by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps it is necessary for me to say today that in a discussion with a spokesman from the Federation of Associations for Messengers of Court of South Africa I heard that his organisation was particularly pleased with this legislation. As has already been stated here, they had been campaigning for the past six or seven years for the institution of the legislation now before us. They are particularly pleased that the legislation has now given their profession teeth, not only in the interests of their profession, but also in service of justice in South Africa, and in service of the community of South Africa, to be able to render a properly disciplined service. The institution of the Board for Sheriffs, which will be composed chiefly of their own people, namely deputy sheriffs and messengers of the court, is particularly welcome. There is not the least doubt that the board has adequate powers to keep a watchful eye on the functions and achievements of the sheriffs.

The institution of a fidelity fund, which will be controlled by the Board for Sheriffs, will also doubtless instil the general public with much confidence. In the same way as the attorneys’ fidelity fund contributed to a tremendous increase in the esteem, status and reliability of that profession, so we believe the Fidelity Fund for Sheriffs will provide the necessary security, which will contribute to the credibility and the dignity of that profession.

The legislation concerned, which has now duly given effect to the very important profession of sheriff, has been thoroughly examined by the joint committee. I should like to suggest that the Board for Sheriffs give further attention to the further utilisation of the Fidelity Fund for Sheriffs. The fund was instituted primarily to protect the public against irregularities and damage caused by the sheriffs, as is also explained clearly in clause 27. The fund, however, will become larger over the years. As is at present the case with the legal profession, the board should receive authority also to utilise reserve funds in the interest and for the promotion of the administration of justice in South Africa.

The chapters dealing with the appointment of sheriffs and other persons, the Board for Sheriffs, and the position of trust of sheriffs etc, make good and suitable provision for setting up an effective constitution for the sheriffs of South Africa.

Before the Bill was drawn up there was consultation over a wide front with magistrates, registrars of the Supreme Courts, the General Bar Council of South Africa, the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa, the Federation of the Associations of Messengers of Court of South Africa, as well as the South African Association of Deputy Sheriffs.

The hon member for Berea appealed to the hon the Minister to announce today that when appointing members of the board, he will also take into account the other population groups. The legislation provides that the Minister shall take into account the competence and training of the members of that board. Of course, the hon the Minister is perfectly entitled to decide to appoint members of other population groups to that board. The standpoint of the CP, as explained in our ethnic policy, is that we are not in favour of multiracial boards of any description. While we shall support this legislation because it is essential, it is our standpoint that when the CP comes to power we shall apply CP policy, and where such boards exist, make them White boards.

Mr Chairman, like the earlier speakers, I welcome this legislation.

†I agree with the hon member for Berea that this proposed legislation was discussed thoroughly and thrashed out in detail in the standing committee. In this regard I want to pay tribute to you, Mr Chairman, for your patience, tact, and I daresay, for your thoroughness, without which this legislation may never have been passed in its present form.

*I want to draw the attention of hon members to only a few aspects of the legislation. I want to cross swords with the hon member Mr Theunissen immediately. I agree with the hon member for Berea that people of colour should also be appointed as sheriffs. In this connection I must point out that naturally there are many deputy sheriffs from other population groups already. Perhaps there are Coloured sheriffs already, but at least I know from my own experience that a number of Coloured deputy sheriffs have been appointed under the leadership of the sheriffs in Port Elizabeth. These deputy sheriff services are normally used to deal with case documents relating to the people of colour. I cannot imagine why the hon member Mr Theunissen objects to that. It has to be in agreement with their policy, after all. The hon member took it a step further, however—I do not believe that was what the hon member for Berea’s plea comprised—by advancing that the board as such should in fact consist of Whites. I think the hon member’s sense of justice should tell him his request in this connection is not fair. If there is a Coloured sheriff, with the necessary competence, training and status, he must also serve in the board for sheriffs, which has to be appointed by the hon the Minister. Colour should not be a disqualification per se.

With this legislation, finality is being given to what I want to describe as the privatisation of messengers of the court, as we know them. The possibility of a new profession in the legal profession is also being created in that there will be sheriffs who are entrusted with the extremely important aspect of the administration of justice in the country. The legislation also reserves certain controlling powers for the Minister. In the first place he has to make the appointments, and in special circumstances he is also given the right of dismissal and suspension. I want to emphasise these aspects in particular and affirm my support of them repeatedly, because in the final instance the hon the Minister is responsible to Parliament and the public at large for the administration of justice. In my opinion it is only right that he has those powers since we are dealing with such an important facet of the administration of justice. [Interjections.]

It is also true that existing sheriffs continue to hold their positions, as the hon member for Roodeplaat said. The requirements for the qualifications of a sheriff are actually defined vaguely in the legislation, and that is what I want to dwell on for a few moments in particular. Clause 30 determines the requirements which have to be complied with if one is to qualify as a sheriff. It is striking—I do not think it is purely coincidental—that the qualifications revolves mostly around the integrity or the honesty of the person who holds the position. In addition it is determined that the applicant must have practical experience, and lastly sufficient training or qualifications which will be regarded as sufficient to comply with the prescribed standards of training.

This is the aspect I want to dwell on. I think the requirement of the qualifications and the practical experience is quite easy. Every deputy sheriff will naturally have the necessary experience, and this brings me to the qualifications. What is the prescribed standard of training? I want to suggest that it may be an important requirement for such a person to be a lawyer. Every practising lawyer or every lawyer automatically has the qualification to qualify as a sheriff. As far as the rural areas are concerned, I really want to advocate to the hon the Minister that the qualifications of a lawyer be a prerequisite for appointing a sheriff.

With this legislation we are writing a new chapter in our administration of justice. It is a chapter which I believe will bring great honour to our legal profession, and I am convinced that the sheriff’s profession as such will gain the professional status in the years ahead which will give him the necessary esteem in the eyes of the public, as long as the correct people are appointed. This then is my plea for lawyers.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before us has many merits. Its effective functioning and its success in creating the circumstances which the Hoexter Commission obviously sought to achieve, will depend to a large extent on the hon the Minister and his department utilising the clause which enables him to appoint personnel to serve properly particularly the outlying areas with an adequate service in the service and execution of process.

The opening discussion of the standing committee was very much concerned, if I remember correctly, with the fact that the existing system has allowed itself to become a closed shop to some extent and has even gained the reputation in some cases of being one by which political or favoured appointments are made. There was also some concern about the fact that the reappointment of the existing members would perpetuate such a system. Quite obviously the Bill itself gives the Minister the opportunity to make quite certain not only that the service is adequate, but that aspect is properly gone into by the board, at his direction or at his request.

The other point discussed at that time was the possibility of a broader and freer method of appointing sheriffs, for which attorneys would automatically qualify by virtue of their training.

There was considerable discussion of the danger of repeating the closed-shop system. Only time can tell how well the structures and powers envisaged in this Bill will allay those fears.

A long time was taken over the discussion of clause 12(2), which confers on the Minister the power of dismissal. He “may at any time remove a member of the Board from his office if… sound reasons exist for doing so”. I am sure the members and the hon the Minister himself will recall that the problem concerned the words “in the opinion of the Minister”, and whether that could be tested in the courts. If not, the question of possible unfair dismissal would always linger in the mind.

Hon members of the other Houses also raised the points already mentioned by other speakers in respect of the fair appointment, not only to the board but also simply as sheriffs, of members of all communities.

Those were the key points. I am certain that, if this legislation is used to serve the legal profession and the courts as is intended, one will certainly have dealt with one of the concerns of the Hoexter Commission in the whole field of access to the courts and the speed with which process is served and, therefore, the speed with which court cases are heard. It should be very beneficial.

We acknowledge, however, that nothing is perfect. There are those areas which will need careful monitoring and consideration to ensure that the system envisaged does not fall into the trap, largely as a result of the activities of the board on which the Minister will rely to a great extent, of limiting its own effectiveness and thereby not bringing about the desired situation.

We have no hesitation in giving this legislation our full support.

Mr Chairman, this legislation has indeed taken a considerable time to reach this final phase. It has already been agreed to by the other two Houses and may soon, therefore, be placed on our Statute Book.

The reason why this matter took some time to be ironed out is that we duly consulted all interested parties over a very long period.

Secondly, we afforded all interested parties the opportunity to make contributions, to ensure that when this legislation is indeed placed on the Statute Book it will have the optimum chance of succeeding, in that all interested parties will have given this legislation their support in advance.

Those interested parties include the Federation of Associations of Messengers of Court, the Association of Deputy Sheriffs, the attorneys and the advocates. We also, of course, had a sound framework of reference, in the form of the report of the Hoexter Commission. Nevertheless we also had to make departmental adjustments in order to deal with the very matters that were debated here. This brings me to the point raised by the hon member for Berea.

The hon member for Berea asked what steps I envisaged taking to ensure that all individuals of all population groups would be afforded the opportunity to receive appointments and, in his words, in order to be fair to the communities. By saying that, the hon member in fact endorsed the idea that specific communities can best be served by people who have been brought to the fore by the specific community. This is a very correct approach, and what it amounts to is that more Coloureds, for example, can be appointed as sheriffs in order to provide their communities with the best possible and most efficient service.

Bearing all this in mind, I have already said the following in the other two Houses and in the specific House where I took the Second Reading.

†This is also my response to the hon member for Berea (Hansard: House of Representatives, 16 June 1986, col 4218):

Not on an apartheid basis, I hope.

No, it is not. The hon member used the words: “In the interests of the various communities”. Yes, he concedes that immediately. I must also emphasise that I concede that for the first time in a very long while, he made a very sensible point. Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with apartheid. It has to do with service to a particular community, but that does not mean that only certain processes of court will be served by members of certain groups. That is not the case. That has never been the policy. Nevertheless, I think the hon member must also take cognisance of the specific provisions we have introduced in order to attain these objectives.

That is why—this also serves as my response to the hon member for King William’s Town—we have provided in clause 2(2) for the possibility that the same person may be appointed as sheriff of both a lower and a superior court and that two or more persons may be appointed as sheriffs of the same court.

Moreover, in clause 3(2) we have stipulated that the Minister may describe one or more areas within the area of jurisdiction of a lower or superior court and allocate any such area to a sheriff of that court. What does that mean? In more intelligible terms, it means that these provisions will enable us to take a look at the cake and see how it can be divided in the interests of justice.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, I was dealing with the fact that in terms of the provisions to which I referred, namely those in clauses 2(2) and 3(2), we shall ultimately be in a position to provide a better service to our courts and our public, that is to say, if hon members will regard this as a service. The fact is, therefore, that we are being placed in a position to achieve the very objectives which the hon member for Berea has in mind—all the members of the standing committee accept this—that will be necessary in order to provide a better service to the various communities.

To be able to do this, tacit provisions are contained in these specific clauses that will enable us to stipulate norms on the basis to determine whether more sheriffs will be appointed in a specific district. They will enable us to appoint more than one sheriff for either the Supreme Court or the lower court, depending on some factors such as the process to be served, the extent of the area in which the public reside and, of course, the number of inhabitants of the area. It is also possible that we shall consider the revenue that can be earned since we want to create the opportunity for this profession to become a viable one.

There is a second step to be taken which is not spelt out as such in this legislation, but which must be interpreted in conjunction with the present section 15 of the Magistrate’s Courts Act. At present there is still a considerable degree of fragmentation with regard to the delivery of process. Process, whether criminal or civil, is, for example, delivered by various local authorities. It is also possible that semi-autonomous institutions undertake the delivery of their own process. Previously we relied largely on the police to serve maintenance orders, for example. The latter items will now be transferred to the sheriffs.

We are now going to investigate a wide field to ensure that there will not be fragmentation with regard to the serving of processes. In this way we shall be able to create a viable profession, employing many more individuals. In this way we shall also be able to provide a better service. As one hon member expressed it, it is not always a welcome service in the eyes of the public, but it is nevertheless an essential service.

The hon member for Berea also inquired about the composition of the board and I shall come back to that in due course. The hon members for Roodeplaat and Port Elizabeth North referred to the norms and standards of this profession. There is now an opportunity for the profession to increase in status and to undergo a positive improvement as far as its content is concerned. The question is whether the Bill makes provision for this. The fact is that the objects of the board are very clearly stated in clause 8, namely:

It is essential that this be read in conjunction with clauses 16(a) and (k). Clause 16(a) provides that committees may be established to advise the board on any matter in respect of which a function is assigned to it. Such a function could, for example, be training for examination. This should be read in conjunction with clause 16(k) which provides that the board may draw up a code of conduct. I believe that clause 33 ultimately makes it possible not to issue a fidelity fund certificate unless the prescribed standard of training has been complied with. In this way, therefore, a tacit power to prescribe a specific standard of training is granted. The total package which is therefore to be put at the disposal of the board is indeed aimed at ensuring an increase in the status and an improvement of the standard, and I trust that hon members will be satisfied that we have hereby made provision for their needs specified by the hon members for Roodeplaat and Elizabeth North.

The hon member Mr Theunissen and the hon member for Port Elizabeth North argued that the Minister should have a fairly free hand. However, these are not powers that a Minister longs to exercise, but I stated clearly that those powers to which reference is made in this Bill, are indeed exercised by the Minister at present. At present the Minister is effectively responsible for the total package as far as the administration of justice is concerned.

Therefore—in reply to the hon member for Port Elizabeth North and the hon member for King William’s Town—it is necessary for the Minister to retain the final say—after all other measures have been unsuccessful—as regards the discharge of a sheriff. The standing committee saw fit to pass an amendment which is embodied in clause 4(3)(b). For the information of the hon member for King William’s Town, it has not been included in clause 12. I quote clause 4(3)(b):

The aim is therefore that the discretion of the Minister can also be tested in court against the background that he must serve the interest of the public and the effective implementation of law. This power will thus be subjected to the test of the law courts.

The hon member for Berea and the hon member, Mr Theunissen, referred to the composition of the board. In terms of this legislation we are gaining an extension of our courts. Our courts are not oriented to a race situation. Indeed, we have said in this House that everyone has access to our courts and that our administration of justice is colourblind. No-one disputed that. If we argue, as the hon member for Berea did, that communities must be served by their own people in a way that is in the interests of such a community, then it is surely possible and justified that a non-racial board may be appointed, which is not, therefore, constituted on a basis of race. Therefore, if merit were to apply in the case of the appointment of a sheriff, then merit ought equally to apply with regard to the appointment of members of the board. That, then, is my reply to the hon member. In fact, I am convinced that the hon member, Mr Theunissen was speaking in lighter vein when he touched on this aspect. In any event I believe that the hon member Mr Theunissen will never need to amend this amendment because he will never be in the privileged position of being able to do so.

So you say, yes!

The fact is, Sir, that is my reply to the hon member Mr Theunissen. Therefore he must know that we now have a Board which will be appointed on merit. Moreover the sheriffs themselves will recommend a list of names from which the Minister will appoint a certain number of people and in the nature of the matter, the Minister must appoint those people who will be able to bring about the necessary contact between the department and, for example, the professions. It is possible that this can be done. For example it is possible that a registrar will be appointed to the board. In the good old days—indeed, this is still the case in the present situation—the registrar was, as it were, the chief sheriff. It is therefore possible that a registrar will indeed be appointed. Indeed it will be appropriate if we could establish a link between the department and the board. It is also possible that a person from the ranks of the department will be appointed to the board. Because the majority of process normally derives from the magistrate’s court, it is also possible that we will establish a link in that regard. I do not wish to commit myself in this regard. However, we shall take another close look at the matter and people will be appointed on merit. For the rest the sheriffs will be duly consulted with regard to this matter. They do submit a list of names. Primarily, then, it will be a matter that will be decided in their own ranks.

This brings me to a final point raised by the hon member for Port Elizabeth North. He argued that we should only appoint attorneys as sheriffs. The fact is that the present Magistrate’s Courts Act contains a provision which imposes an absolute prohibition on the appointment of attorneys as messengers of court. This is not, of course, because they are incompetent, but because there would be a conflict of interest every day. Every single day! Indeed, hon members know that from time to time, when we make appointments, we impose conditions with the specific aim of preventing a conflict of interest. In practice, however, it is possible, particularly on the platteland, that an attorney could aspire to be a candidate. However, I can anticipate this situation and say that particularly where a large urban area is concerned—an area in which a large amount of magistrate’s court work is done—it will be required of the attorney to lay down his profession, since we should otherwise have a clash of interests. It is for that very reason that we repealed that provision. Therefore, without incorporating it in the present measure, it is possible to appoint an attorney, because then all can compete on an equal footing. Even auditors could be candidates. There are even politicians who could compete. We can imagine, however, what the situation would be if a member of Parliament applied for a post of this nature. The fact is, therefore, that we shall not be able to tolerate a conflict of interests in this regard. Of course, it is even possible that although there will not necessarily be a conflict of interests, we may nevertheless, in the interests of good order and also of an efficient service, require a person who has a profession that he is practising at that juncture, to relinquish it. For example, we have required this in the past with regard to certain businessmen. In this case we have already laid down a condition that they can only be appointed to such a post provided they devote themselves to the relevant task on a full-time basis.

Of course, there is another reason why we cannot exclude attorneys in this instance. It may be that on the platteland only attorneys will be available for this purpose. Indeed, we have had such cases. In this instance we shall have to find a way of dealing with the matter through the application of policy. At present a large number of people who are not attorneys occupy the office of deputy sheriff. The person occupying this office only serves process on behalf of the Supreme Court. He performs his duties in various large cities. Pretoria is just one example of a place where a person from the same family has occupied the office of deputy sheriff for three generations, whereas there are no attorneys who are able to perform this task. Moreover, they perform this task very efficiently. I therefore adopt the standpoint that we have now reached a stage in regard to the improvement of standards at which we cannot necessarily say that it is only an attorney, with his expertise, who can perform these services effectively. It is conceivable, however, that on the platteland we shall still have to avail ourselves of the services of attorneys because they are the most suitable persons to perform those services. What we are doing, therefore, is to impose no restrictions or limitations on people. We shall also adopt a very strict attitude as far as conflict of interests is concerned, and in the final instance we shall be geared to providing effective services to the courts and the public.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

†The proposed amendments to the Matrimonial Property Act of 1984 are explained in detail in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill. Briefly I want to indicate the amendments entail the following. In terms of sections 21(2)(a) and 25(2)(a) and (b) of the Matrimonial Property Act of 1984, spouses may change their matrimonial property system by causing certain provisions of the Act to apply to their marriage. The Act requires that such a change should be made within two years after the commencement of the Act.

As the Act came into operation on 1 November 1984, spouses have the opportunity only until 31 October 1986 to bring about such a change. Statistics show that at present spouses make more frequent use of the said provisions to arrange for a more equitable distribution of property. To restrict this power of spouses to two years may possibly defeat the purpose of the Act.

In clauses 1(a) and 2 of the Bill, therefore, the Minister of Justice is granted the power to extend by notice in the Gazette the periods within which spouses to certain marriages may cause certain provisions of the Act to apply to their marriages. The amendment of section 21 of the Act is consequential.

Mr Chairman, I think it is generally conceded that the principal Act which we are amending tonight, was an enlightened piece of legislation.

Hear, hear!

The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs says “Hear, hear!”. Let me explain, however, what the legislation did because I do not think the hon the Minister understands it. [Interjections.] It was an enlightened piece of legislation which gave women a much fairer deal in the state of marriage. [Interjections.]

What do you say now?

This hon Minister is on record as having said awful things about women drivers and that sort of thing. Well, if he says “Hear, hear!” perhaps he has become more enlightened as well! [Interjections.] Nonetheless, I want to say it was and is still one of the most enlightened pieces of legislation which have become before this Parliament for some time.

It was of course regrettable that its provisions applied only to future marriages and not to marriages already in existence. That was regretted by a great number of the people involved in the making of that legislation.

Still, I think the deficiency in the legislation was widely recognised, and I think its shortcomings were partially cured by the insertion of certain sections in terms of which spouses were allowed to change their matrimonial property system to the new and more beneficial system by way of a notarial deed. I think that in itself is a recognition of the deficiency and a mechanism was inserted to try to cure that deficiency, albeit on a minor scale.

The opportunity of course, Mr Chairman, was limited in that it had to be exercised within a period of two years from the commencement of the Act, that is 1 November 1984. Specifically, by notarial deed, spouses married out of community of property can within this time period opt to make the accrual system apply to their marriages. Similarly, Mr Chairman, spouses married under the old system of community of property could by agreement abolish for themselves the archaic system of marital power held by the man over the woman. It is interesting to note that these provisions have been used, perhaps not to the extent that might have been anticipated, but they have been used. If one looks back over the last two years one finds that during the initial six-month period, that is from December 1984 to June 1985, 615 couples brought about a change to their matrimonial property system in terms of sections 21(2)(a) and 25(2)(a) respectively. From July to December 1985, that is a period one month shorter, 720 spouses brought about such changes. With regard to spouses married out of community of property who wish to make the accrual system apply to their marriages, statistics show a constant increase from 10 instances during December 1984 to 80 during April 1985 who made use of this provision. Since April 1985 the figures have varied but show a steadily higher inclination. For example, in October 1985 alone 117 couples made use of this provision. I believe that the relatively slow start made in the utilisation of these sections was perhaps due to the fact that, despite some publicity—and I remember there was publicity at the time—the new opportunities created by the Act were not known or fully recognised by the public at large. As time passes and as perhaps attorneys advise their clients, so the demand is growing, and this growth could continue for some years to come. However, we know that unless this Act is amended—as we are doing here tonight—the right to change one’s property and matrimonial property system will expire at the end of October 1986. We in these benches believe that this option should be available to all married couples for as long as a legitimate demand exists. Accordingly we are going to support this Bill and we hope that the attorneys and other people involved in this kind of situation, and the hon the Minister and his department, will use the extra time in order to persuade people and to advise them of the benefits which will accrue to them.

With those few words we support this Bill. We think it is a good Bill and we hope the hon the Minister will in his discretion exercise the powers to extend generously.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Berea for his support.

There were very good reasons why this measure was made applicable to future marriages only. The decision in existing marriages was to be a voluntary one on the part of husband and wife. This is an important matter and marriage partners should decide on it themselves. Nevertheless it is also very dear that the need now exists to extend the period which expires at the end of October, as pointed out by the hon member for Berea. Decisions by spouses regarding the marital system applicable to them and also in respect of marital power are very important matters which cannot be decided easily or overnight and therefore a relatively slow start was made on this. There are current indications, however, that there are considerably more changes and that is why it is very clear that a need for this measure exists. I therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Chairman, the CP realises what practical problem the hon the Minister has to contend with and why he is bringing this legislation to the House. It is clear that information regarding the legal remedies referred to in section 21(2)(a) and section 25(2)(a) and (b) penetrated more slowly to spouses than was surmised or expected. There are apparently many married people still considering the use of the relevant legal remedies and we agree they should be given the opportunity of doing so. The CP therefore agrees there should be an extension of time as has already been spelt out here.

I have no fault to find with the idea that the Minister may extend the period by means of a notice in the Gazette but I think a deadline within which spouses are granted further time should be a fixed and final date. If the Minister is capable of extending the relevant date indefinitely, to my mind this will merely create confusion and legal uncertainty and this is not conducive to legal certainty.

We support the measures under these circumstances but request the Minister to take such action as will ensure legal certainty. We believe it would be undesirable for an indefinite extension of the additional time which is to be granted to spouses for making use of the legal remedies mentioned. In our judgment there should be a fixed deadline in future. We support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I thank the previous speaker for CP support of these amendments.

For all practical purposes, prospective parties to a marriage may exercise a choice among one of three marital dispensations, namely in community of property or out of community of property, with or without the accrual system. This is no simple choice. It often occurs after thorough consultation on all relevant factors between the spouses concerned and ultimately after consultation with their attorney in many cases.

On the inception of the Matrimonial Property Act, it was made possible for parties to change the system as regards their matrimonial property. Regardless of laudable steps by the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa to inform members of the public of the content and implications of this Act, attorneys are receiving enquiries to an increasing degree on the operation of sections 21 and 25 in particular. This indicates parties’ sustained interest in changing the system in respect of their matrimonial property to the degree to which they are empowered to do so.

One of the obvious reasons why the courts continue to be approached to grant orders in terms of section 21(1) and in which execution and registration of notarial contracts continue to take place in terms of section 21(2) and section 25(2) is frequently because one of the spouses starts a business undertaking in the light of current economic conditions or because of an increasing realisation that parties initial system is not suited to their current circumstances.

Parties should not be deprived of the opportunity of changing their system or causing certain provisions of the Act to apply to it in cases in which they have a bona fide desire to make use of the concession under the Act. It would therefore be unfair to deprive them of this opportunity as regards section 21(2)(a) and (c) and section 25(A)(a) and (b) merely by the passage of time.

This Act has brought about an incisive change to our Law and its advantages are gradually being realised by the public. The extension of the two-year period will result in bringing about a great degree of understanding and acceptance of the innovations instituted by the Matrimonial Property Act. More people will now have the opportunity to make use of it. I take pleasure in supporting the measure.

Mr Chairman, we support this amending legislation. I must say I am surprised that my friend the hon member Mr Theunissen has even thought of putting a limiting date on this. In the discussion in the select committee at the time a shorter period was proposed and there was much debate on the wisdom of restricting it. This has been borne out and the escalating numbers that have been pointed out by the hon member for Berea in a very well-motivated speech require that it be left open. I think therefore the legislation is absolutely right as it is.

The question of its creating uncertainty in law to my mind does not really apply. It is an individual and private matter between persons and, provided that the matter is proceeded with and notarised in the correct manner, there can be no uncertainty. The arrangement either is or is not changed.

As the hon member for Berea said, this legislation is a big step forward in respect of this particular type of contract between persons. It should be left open at the Minister’s discretion for as long as seems feasible. Who knows, it might in fact remain open—there is no reason for it to have a target date. It is purely a matter of choice between people and it would apply to those who had married under a different matrimonial property system before on agreement.

Why was there a date originally in the Act?

It was an incorrect concept and should never have been there. I think the correct decision has been taken now and I think that is how it should stay. We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the support for this Bill. It is certainly one which has received an enormous amount of support in its broad application. For the period of December 1984 to June 1985 a total of 12 169 marriage contracts were entered into and even in 7 278 of these an automatic accrual system created in terms of this legislation was retained. Upwards of 50% therefore chose the new system because it was actually automatic but they could also have chosen to exclude it from the contract.

In the period from July to December 1985 the same tendency emerged. More than 50% of marriage contracts indicated that the people concerned preferred the accrual system.

This tendency was sustained during the months of January, February, March and April this year. It is interesting that, of the 1 673 marriage contracts concluded, in no fewer than 1 252 of them the new system was preferred. In March it was preferred in 835 of the 1 111 marriages.

Section 25 of the principal Act deals with the retention or abolition of marital power. For the sake of interest I may say that in March 1986 spouses involved in no fewer than 28 marriages contracted in community of property decided to dispense with the marital power by means of the legal remedies made available. This year has certainly seen a new tendency emerging to make use of this remedy. The corresponding number for April was 36.

Because of this it is very clear that the public has only now started to become aware of the means at their disposal and spouses are persuading each other to use them.

The hon member Mr Theunissen has requested me to fix a deadline. When we make an announcement, I shall be able to do no other than stipulate a period. We shall obviously now also have to take note of the tendency of the graph—a rising one—which I attempted sketching here by illustrating only a few points of intersection. We shall have to respect the wishes of the public for whom we institute legislation after all. We shall undoubtedly have to adjust the deadline accordingly.

There is a further factor we shall probably have to take into account. We have amended the Divorce Act in such a way that it is possible for the Bench to intervene in cases in which parties who entered into marriages before the inception of the principal Act are actually unable to avail themselves of the benefits. In accordance with a number of yardsticks, the Bench may make an award to the aggrieved husband or wife.

As regards deceased estates, we left the matter open and said we could not yet insert it here in principle. That matter was recommitted to the Law Commission as a high priority. The entire question is whether a deceased spouse should be assigned a legitimate portion or not. We said at the time we were very sympathetic toward the surviving spouse wronged by a will. At the same time we stated we wished to give the matter our attention.

On examining the entire matrimonial property system in South Africa, we shall have to cast those measures we may possibly institute into the melting pot with existing measures to ensure that we actually create a fair and just system. As far as fixing a deadline is concerned, I shall undoubtedly also be guided by the period of time which will be available to attend to this other matter. The period cannot be too long because people are dying daily and each day some inclination or other may cause a spouse to disinherit the other. This is a factor and unfortunately I cannot tell the hon member that for the sake of legal certainty I shall not extend the date again or that we shall finally determine a short or a long period. I agree with the hon member for King William’s Town that up to the present we have been unable to trace the factor of legal uncertainty in our court cases but I shall very definitely request the department to bear it in mind in view of the hon member Mr Theunissen’s advice—he is a practitioner for whom I have great regard professionally.

None of the other hon members taking part raised a particular point and I thank them for their participation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Since this Second Reading Speech is the first to be delivered in the series, I have to deal rather comprehensively with the matter. I also do so because there is nothing small about a small claims court.

Not any more.

Yes, not any more. As the judge said to the dwarf on a certain occasion: “The law does not take cognisance of negligible matters!” I am sure that the hon member for Springfield doubts my information. Since it appears to me that he is a Latinist, if I remember the Latin phrase, the judge said: Lex non curat minimus!

Since 1 October 1985, nine small claims courts have been established at the bigger centres by way of pilot projects. These centres are Pretoria, Johannesburg, Springs, Rustenburg, Bloemfontein, Pietermaritzburg, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. To monitor and ensure the smooth functioning of these pilot projects, I appointed an implementation committee at each centre. Furthermore, advisory councils were appointed, the chairmen of which are members of the implementation committees. The other members are competent persons from the local community. The purpose of the advisory councils is to organise the pilot projects and to report on a continuous basis to the implementation committee which, in turn, gives advice to the advisory councils, and also reports to me with regard to the functioning of the pilot projects and any problems which are experienced. Hon members will understand when I say that in this case I also have to form an opinion.

I can report with confidence that the establishing of these courts and their functioning have been extremely successful. The immense demand for the establishment of further pilot projects is evidence of the success of the small claims courts. In this regard it may be mentioned that I am at present considering representations for the establishment of pilot projects at George, Kroonstad, Klerksdorp, East London, Newcastle, Kimberley, Pietersburg and Upington.

Before I briefly discuss the proposed amendments, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank members of the implementation committees and advisory councils; and the commissioners, legal assistants, court officials and all the other people who made their services available—free of charge—during the pilot projects, for the unselfish service they perform on behalf of the community. In this regard I wish to include all the organisations, town councils and universities which made a contribution and which even made accommodation available free of charge.

During the preparation for the commencement of the pilot projects and also during the functioning of the courts, some problems came to light which necessitate amendments to the Act. In particular I refer to the following. Because of the costs involved and the non-availability of accommodation and court officials, it is not at present possible to establish a small claims court for each magisterial district in the country. On the other hand, the number of cases does not justify the establishment of such a court in certain rural districts, and by that I mean a full-time court. To enable me to make use of the existing advisory councils and also, to a certain extent, of the court officials, provision is made in clause 1 of the Bill that a small claims court may be established for an area consisting of one or more districts or for a part of a district. It will then, for instance, be possible to extend the area of jurisdiction of the small claims court already established in Cape Town to include Wynberg and Goodwood.

In order to give people in smaller towns the opportunity to make use of the services of these courts, provision is further made that the Minister or a magistrate authorised by him may establish, for a particular district, a court for the adjudication of any particular claim or claims.

The amendments contained in clauses 3, 5, 6 and 7 are consequential.

Section 5(2) of the Act presently compels a commissioner of a small claims court to call an interpreter if evidence is given in a language with which one of the parties is, in the opinion of the commissioner, not sufficiently conversant. Consequently, the State is obliged to have an interpreter available at every court hearing. No such obligation is imposed upon the State in civil proceedings in the other courts of law. Litigants arrange for their own interpreters. The State is, however, still prepared to provide the service, but as interpreters are not readily available, it is proposed in clause 2 that section 5(2) be amended to leave it to the commissioner’s discretion whether or not to call an interpreter.

Of course, if anyone fears that there may be a miscarriage of justice, or if such miscarriage of justice occurs, such a decision may be taken on review. I have no doubt in my mind that if the commissioner comes to a decision against the interests of the litigant, his decision will be reviewable.

Section 7(3) of the Act provides that a minor or other person who does not have the capacity to institute or defend proceedings in a court of law without assistance shall be assisted in a small claims court by his parents, spouse or guardian, as the case may be. This has the effect that such a guardian or spouse must be present in court. In order to bring the position into line with common law and statutory law, it is proposed that subsection (3) be deleted. The effect is that the person who needs assistance to sue or be sued will by exception rather than rule require the presence of the person so assisting him in court.

During my Second Reading Speech on the Small Claims Courts Bill on 10 April 1984, I pointed out that it was initially envisaged to determine the monetary jurisdiction of the court at R1 500. In view of representations which I then received, I agreed to reduce it to R1 000. I pointed out clearly, however, that this was on condition that a mechanism would be considered to adjust the said jurisdiction regularly in accordance with the inflation rate and according to need. On occasion the hon member for King William’s Town in the House of Assembly also proposed that a mechanism be established to adjust the jurisdiction of the courts more regularly. Meanwhile, in a certain court case, the court indicated that the legislature should, on a regular basis, give attention to the disparity which exists between fines and imprisonment due to the weakening value of the monetary unit. Although this decision deals with criminal cases, the principle is the same, and it has become necessary that one or other mechanism should be considered to scrutinise the monetary jurisdiction continuously and—in general—to valorise it.

Amendments by means of amending Bills in Parliament are a time-consuming and expensive process, and hon members will agree that we cannot amend an Act year after year simply to adjust the monetary limit to the jurisdiction. Consequently, clauses 8 and 9 are intended to prevent such amendments to the Act, as provision is made that the Minister may adjust the monetary limit to the jurisdiction by notice in the Gazette. At the same time I wish to inform hon members that I am considering proposing that the Magistrates’ Courts Act be amended in the same manner. This will enable me to look simultaneously at the position of all courts and to bring about adjustments on a balanced basis. In this regard I wish to assure all parties concerned—and I now address myself to the professions—that adjustments will only be made after thorough consultation and that the inputs of interested parties will be taken into account.

In conclusion, with reference to my Second Reading Speech—and I apologise for quoting myself—I want to emphasise that the small claims courts are intended primarily to serve the interests of the individual claimer and to be courts of dispute, not merely courts for the purposes of debt collection. At present provision is made for the exclusion of debt collection through the interaction of certain provisions, perhaps more in spirit than in fact. However, I want to assure hon members that we are keeping a close eye on the situation and if it appears that these courts are being abused for the purposes of debt collection, an amendment to the Act will be considered in order to stop the possibility of such a practice. Again, the public, including the professions are to be thanked in that hitherto they have striven to honour the true objectives of the small claims court.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister will perhaps be getting a swollen head at the speed with which his legislation is being passed through this House, but here the third piece of legislation comes along and again we have no fault to find with it. We have dealt with it and participated on the standing committee, and we are therefore supporting the Bill.

In supporting it, though I must observe that, while it took some while after the passing of the principal Act for the pilot projects to be undertaken, one can look back now and say that delay was probably worthwhile, because I must say that the first nine courts established in terms of this legislation have been remarkably successful. They have been successful, and they have provided a long awaited facility, serving the ordinary people in the street of all walks of life.

When one looks at the statistics available as to the operation of these courts during their pilot period, one sees that in Johannesburg from January 1986 to July 1986 some 1 300 small claims cases were adjudicated upon by voluntary lawyers and finalised at little cost to the litigants. In Springs there were some 100 cases dealt with in the same way and in Pretoria there were 289 cases during the same period. I think one could find similar statistics applying to Cape Town and Durban where these courts have also operated. So, I think that in these circumstances the implementation committee, the various advisory councils and the staff of the Department of Justice deserve to be congratulated on the very successful and efficient launching of what is obviously a worthwhile project, welcomed by the public of South Africa.

This amending Bill is non-contentious and makes provision for the economical expanding of this scheme. I think it requires little debate. We welcome the provisions enabling minors to sue or be sued in this court without the presence of a parent being required throughout. The amendment brings the situation into line with common law and other statutory law. We also welcome the amendment giving the Minister power to vary the monetary jurisdiction of the court, as the need arises, without having to introduce amending legislation each time. I think such an amendment is already much overdue, if I may say so to the hon the Minister. The R1 000 ceiling taking into account inflation since the original Act came into effect, is already unrealistic, and in our view the hon the Minister should act quickly in this regard.

With those words we support this measure.

Mr Chairman, I should very much like to thank the hon member for Berea and his party for their support. There were approximately 10 or 11 amendments, and all of them were logical and practical. Under the energetic guidance of the chairman the standing committee scrutinised them, and I am quite sure that they will contribute to the success story of the small claims court. I therefore gladly support them.

Mr Chairman, we also support this statutory amendment.

The hon the Minister covered this Bill in full in his Second Reading Speech, and it is hardly necessary to add anything. I should, however, like to make a few observations concerning clause 8 which deals inter alia with the jurisdiction of courts of this land. In terms of section 15 of the principal Act the monetary jurisdiction of the courts was limited to small claims up to R1 000. Now the Minister is being empowered to determine this monetary jurisdiction by notice in the Gazette.

Originally when the legal profession was consulted about courts of this kind, there was, I think, initial opposition from the legal profession. It is understandable to a certain extent, because the establishment of courts of this kind has in fact intruded in a certain sense upon the existing domain of the legal profession. Their vested interests were in jeopardy. The hon the Minister will agree however that the legal profession has done its part and through negotiation the monetary jurisdiction was limited to R1 000.

Now the hon the Minister wants a blank cheque in order to determine the monetary jurisdiction at his discretion. I am not quite sure as to the correctness of my facts, but we have been informed that the legal profession was not satisfied with this. In the light of the already declining value of the rand, one understands that the monetary jurisdiction should be increased, but it will always be asked how far the Minister will go.

We must guard against the purpose for which the small claims court was established being defeated by periodic increases in the monetary jurisdiction. Therefore we request the hon the Minister to give an undertaking today that he will first clear any proposed increased with the Association of Law Societies of Southern Africa.

We support the other amendments in the present legislation.

Mr Chairman, firstly I would like to thank the hon member Mr Theunissen and his party for supporting the Bill before us.

After listening to the previous speakers, I think I can say without hesitation that the institution for the small claims court is one of the many popular measures the Government has recently introduced. As is the case with any Bill once it has been implemented, certain improvements will ensure a more efficient and smoother operation in practice. The Department of Justice are to be congratulated on their quick reaction in bringing to this House the amendments that have met with the approval of all the parties in Parliament. Furthermore, the measures contained in this Bill will lead to the extension of the availability and the efficiency of the small claims court. There can be no argument that small claims court have made court action economically viable for many more people, especially for the less privileged members of our society. Not only that, but these courts have also allowed those people to experience justice in action without the fear and trepidation of entering into litigation in accordance with the more formal procedure in a normal court.

Order! Hon members must lower their voices.

One hears and reads of domestic servants instituting actions against their employers and winning their cases.

But you are not an attorney.

I do not think that precludes me from talking about it, does it, Sir? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

One also hears of neighbours taking each other to a small claims court over a crop of 13 pumpkins growing on a vacant municipal lot. They both got good advice from the commissioner who said: “Neighbours should sit down together and enjoy a meal and a dop.” Maybe that applies to the hon members of the CP!

The small claims court has become known as the court of smiles, informality and politeness, with not a prosecutor in sight. [Interjections.] All this adds up to one thing, namely a success story for the Department of Justice.

We have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am glad to see the hon member for South Coast involving himself in matters involving the Standing Committee on Justice.

You are working overtime today.

We are a hardworking party! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bloemfontein East did us a favour by reminding us about the services of our chairman, and this series of Bills that we are working through here does give one the opportunity to make mention of the fine spirit and manner in which our chairman handles all these justice matters.

Who is he?

It is the gentleman who is sitting in the Chair tonight. I must also say that the spirit within the standing committee is very similar to the spirit in relation to the small claims courts and the hon the Minister’s enthusiasm for them. When one looks at his Second Reading Speech one notices the degree of public participation and the enthusiasm with which people made accommodation available and officials came forward and the legal profession participated in order to get the pilot projects off the ground. I think that is a very positive and spirited approach to something which has been greeted with enthusiasm by the public and which fills a gap in the ordinary man’s life as far as annoying legal processes are concerned.

There is an area, however, which I would like to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention. I am sure his staff and his department are aware of it, but for the information of the House I want to say it is a particular area which one will have to watch.

In Business Day of 11 June this year a letter appeared entitled “Small Comfort”. I quote from it as follows:

It would appear that the person might have a point of interest to the hon the Minister in an area which, given the opportunity, he will reply to. Incidentally, it is signed by someone in Benmore, Johannesburg by the name of Rogers. It is not me, though; it is someone who has a good legal approach.

Yes, Roger the Dodger!

Mr Chairman, we support this legislation heartily.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for King William’s Town quoted from a letter published in Business Day and I think he has actually given me the opportunity I was looking for, namely to emphasise that the small claims court is not a collection court. If we really want to harm this beautiful institution, we must allow it to develop into a collection court. We have taken it up to the writ stage where a warrant of execution may be issued. Thereafter, the magistrate’s court procedure is available. However, a person then has a liquidated claim at his disposal. He may even proceed to liquidate a company, which is, to my mind, a remedy that should be considered in this case.

It is too late; he has gone!

It should be considered in this case. However, the point I also want to make is that the small claims court is not a tracing agent. It is there especially to attend to the claim of the man in the street against a defendant. He wants swift judgment and, if possible, swift settlement. In contrast with this matter, so many hundreds of cases have been reported where swift settlements really took place. Therefore, please do not judge the small claims court on the basis of a single letter! I really do not think we are rendering it a service in this way. I want to use this opportunity—I do not want abuse it—to emphasise that it is not a collection court. I said in the main debate on this issue that we shall watch the tendency very carefully. If there is a tendency to abuse this court by using it as a collection court, we shall take the necessary steps to prevent that.

I assume that in that case “Rogers” was spelt with three g’s and not with one! Nevertheless, the hon member for King William’s Town made a valuable contribution. One always has to attend to the minutest detail of his arguments because they are always worthwhile.

*The hon member for Berea gives the Bill his unqualified support. I do not think he expects any further comment from me. The hon member for Bloemfontein East spoke about a success story. The hon member Mr Theunissen then also referred to the fine role played by the attorneys in these courts, and to the fact that they are actually becoming the barometer for quite a number of our statutory amendments. The hon member for Vryburg—he is not in the House at the moment—also made a valuable contribution in the previous debate when he pointed out how the experience of the attorneys is actually a barometer for us in connection with such amendments.

I want to dwell on this for a moment, and mention that in addition to the courts which have already been established in the larger centres, we have approved the establishment of nine further small claims courts. They will be situated in George, Kroonstad, Klerksdorp, East London, Newcastle, Kimberley, Pietersburg, Vanderbijlpark and Upington. The establishment of small claims courts in Potchefstroom, Oudtshoorn and Roodepoort is also foreseen. [Interjections.]

What is the procedure which is followed? In the first place we are of course always sensitive to the needs of the local community. If the local community asks for this—this kind of institution is already very well known—officials from our head office give attention to such an application. In this connection I should like to refer to the tireless diligence of Advocate Jasper Noeth, the Chief Director (Legal Services), in giving attention to such applications in good time. A committee is then appointed on which local interested persons served. It can consist of the magistrate, attorneys, the advocacy if it is a large town, academics and other interested persons.

Recently I have even seen applications for appointment to the committee from outside the immediate legal disciplines and we welcome such interest. They investigate the matter, and acquire suitable premises, because these courts do not sit on the traditional premises of the magistrate’s court itself. Premises are obtained with the co-operation of universities, local authorities, and so on. Of course one also wants to express one’s appreciation to them—particularly to those persons who serve on those committees unselfishly and without any compensation, and incur considerable personal expenditure.

In addition they identify possible commissioners in their investigation. Consequently, when they are appointed in a structured way by way of proclamation they are also in a position of authority to negotiate with people on possible appointments as commissioners. This is submitted to me, after which such commissioners are appointed by means of further ministerial act. I want to reiterate that for the first time in our history, we have co-operation throughout South Africa between the respective professions—the bars, side-bars, academics, the public, town councils, and the Department of Justice itself.

We have an important mutual involvement and I venture to predict that to a great extent this can also lay the foundations in other fields. I have had occasion to say that the experience we gain in the small claims courts, particularly as regards procedure, can eventually be a melting pot for application in future. I would be very glad if all hon members would convey the message to their constituencies that we appreciate the co-operation and dedication of the respective organisations. [Interjections.]

The hon member for South Coast also made a very good contribution to the debate. I am sorry that I cannot announce at this stage that the South Coast is also under consideration. A statutory amendment will nevertheless enable us to provide that in areas where we do not establish a special court under the leadership of a committee, one can approach the magistrate if a serious need arises to institute a claim. In terms of the powers being granted now the magistrate is able to establish a small claims court for the duration of that case, because it is not possible to maintain such a structure on an ongoing basis in Pofadder of Onseepkans, for example. But it is possible to settle a small case in Garies, where someone may feel aggrieved about his kubus. [Interjections.] Consequently we have also made provision for such a need.

I also want to get back to the hon member Mr Theunissen. He said that we should consult the attorneys when we increased the monetary jurisdiction. He asked me whether the attorneys supported the Bill. I cannot say that they supported it with acclaim from the outset, but what happened was that they submitted memoranda and said that they wondered whether this power should be entrusted to the executive authority. I immediately notified them that we would proceed as follows, by way of a quote from what I had said in another House, viz:

I then received a letter in which they said that they had taken cognisance of this and accepted it in the spirit in which the hon member referred to it. The fact of the matter is that it would be foolish to attempt any such amendment without the co-operation of the professions. They are among our most important commissioners and to date they have rendered this service free of charge. For that reason we will obviously take their interests into consideration.

†I would, however, at the same time wish to add that I indicated in my Second Reading Speech in one of the other Houses that the issue of the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts would necessarily be considered simultaneously if and when the jurisdiction of the small claims courts was increased. There is a very delicate balance between the jurisdiction of the small claims courts and that of magistrates’ courts. Out of necessity, therefore, we shall have to consult on these issues, and we propose to deal with the matter in the very near future.

*I think the hon member Mr Theunissen will be satisfied with the reply I have given.

I now thank all the hon members, including the hon member for Bloemfontein East, for their particular contributions. I see the hon member for Mossel Bay has resumed his seat again. Mention was made of the important role he played as chairman of the standing committee. I want to endorse that enthusiastically. When I initially wanted to do so, the hon member was in the Chair. The question then arose whether he should actually have been in the Chair because he had had a direct interest in the success story of this Bill. Of course it is no longer necessary to raise that point because the hon member has resumed his seat. But I want to associate myself with those persons who paid tribute to him.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

This Bill envisages vesting functions assigned to the State President in terms of certain laws in the respective Ministers of State who are charged with the administration of those laws.

In the memorandum on the objects of the Bill the reasons and necessity for the transfer of these functions to the respective Ministers of State are explained in full and I therefore regard it as unnecessary to repeat everything in detail.

In short, in contrast to the previous constitutional dispensation, the State President is at present actively involved in the administration. In terms of section 20(l)(a) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act the State President presides at meetings of the Cabinet, and in this capacity he has control over and access to the administration of all Government departments. When the State President has to exercise any function by virtue of the provisions of any law, more often than not he does so either in consultation with Ministers of State who are members of the Cabinet or on the advice of the Ministers’ Councils. This has the effect that accountability is distributed and that the Ministers of State are co-responsible. Consequently there is at present no reason constitutionally speaking why certain functions which were assigned to the State President by law prior to the commencement of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1983 should not be vested in the various Ministers of State who are entrusted with the administration of those laws. This step will by no means impair the overall executive powers of the State President, but will certainly address the issues referred to in Lawrence Baxter’s textbook on administrative law. The State President’s active involvement in the administration, together with the fact that at present he performs the duties and functions of the then offices of State President and Prime Minister jointly, results in an additional workload for him. The State President at present has to devote his valuable time to the signing of documents which envisage executive actions and, as I have already mentioned, there is no constitutional reason why these actions cannot vest exclusively in the responsible Ministers of State.

Mr Speaker, there are certain powers which vest exclusively in the State President as head of State and these powers ought not to be transferred. Therefore the prerogative powers of the State President, including those prerogatives which are stipulated in the Constitution or any other law, as well as functions of the State President with regard to the functioning of the Constitution, are not being transferred. Further, the statutory powers of the State President which vest constitutionally in the head of State are not being transferred either.

The Standing Committee on Justice has, as in the past, done its work thoroughly and has considered each amendment separately. The amendments proposed in the Bill received the unanimous support of the standing committee.

Mr Speaker, I think the hon the Minister has confirmed in his short Second Reading Speech that, while at first glance the powers referred to in this Bill appear formidable—the Bill contains some 48 clauses and it has two long schedules which I think list nearly 250 Acts that are amended by the Bill—it is in fact a piece of legislation of a very technical nature. When I arrived here in Parliament this morning, one of my colleagues said we were going to have a long session on Justice matters because of the very long Bill transferring the powers and duties of the State President. The public and some elements of the Press might have had that perception as well.

However, as the hon the Minister has pointed out, this legislation has been before the standing committee who looked at its provisions assiduously. We looked at the various transfers of powers and it is of a technical nature relating to the powers that the Head of State transfers to Ministers as far as the signing of documents is concerned. In these benches our view is the State President is as inefficient as all of his Ministers and so it does not really make much difference who has the power to sign documents anyway. [Interjections.] However, in a more serious vein, it is a technical Bill and it will obviously relieve the Head of State of having to spend time signing documents which could equally be signed by his Ministers. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Berea for his support. When the present constitutional dispensation came into operation the powers and duties associated with the office of State President—the hon the Minister also pointed this outchanged fundamentally. Apart from his traditional role as Head of State, the State President also at present has an active and decisive role in the administration of the State. In terms of the Constitution the State President is the Chairman of the Cabinet and Head of the Executive Authority, on the same basis as the former Prime Minister. In addition, the Constitution provides that the State President can exercise any power, perform any duty or function delegated to a Minister as a general affair. Therefore, at present, in addition to his ceremonial office, the State President has direct control over, and a say in, the administration of the State.

This combination of such a wide variety of functions makes it desirable that those powers and duties which are not exclusive to an executive Head of State, whether traditionally or by way of prerogative, or specifically prescribed by the Constitution, should be transferred to another competent functionary. This proposed legislation does in fact transfer a large number of these powers and duties, which are mostly of an administrative nature, to the Minister concerned, where they belong. Apart from the essential rationalisation of the office of State President, this will also facilitate and speed up the carrying out of these functions. This side of the House takes pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, this Bill could just as well have been called “Bill to make the Workload of the State President lighter” instead of this relatively big name which appears formally on the Bill before us. As regards the administrative tasks of the State President which he has to perform in terms of hundreds of laws and statutory provisions, it is indeed true that many of those tasks can just as well be performed by other members of the Cabinet.

As a result of the new dispensation and as a result of the government’s other plans for reform, the State President now finds himself in the position that he can no longer do all his administrative work. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is the chief architect of the new dispensation, is known to be an empire-builder, and in his overeagerness to build an empire for the State President as well, he completely overestimated the limits of man’s ability to do everything himself. To any reasonable person who had to take the realities of South Africa into account it was clear from the outset that State President Botha would not be able to perform all those duties—and our party warned against this from the start.

It is indicated in the Bill before us that about 257 laws and statutory provisions require the personal attention of the State President. We are aware that various ways to alleviate the workload of the State President were sought. Amongst other things the possibility of creating the office of Deputy State President to alleviate the workload was raised. However, I can well understand that the State President would not agree to the establishment of such an office, since as leader of the NP in South Africa and as leader of the NP in the Cape he already has a tremendous workload.

The question immediately arose: If a post such as that of Deputy State President should be created, who would it be? [Interjections.] Many speculated about it and some even thought that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would get that post. However, the hon the Minister is not acceptable to anyone else in the rest of South Africa.

Others were of the opinion that the hon the Minister of National Education was being borne in mind.

No, he is a Nationalist!

If, however, the hon the Minister were to be appointed to that office in order to lessen the workload of the State President, as sure as anything the Cape Province will lose its grip on national politics and it will go to the Transvaal again. [Interjections.]

There was also a group in the NP that very much would have liked to see the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs as Deputy State President to assist the State President in performing his work. However, I do not think that the State President saw his way clear to do that. There are already plenty of signs that the Chief Minister of kwaZulu is very interested in the conviction of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that it is unavoidable that South Africa would get a Black State President. [Interjections.]

Order! Which Bill is the hon member discussing now?

Mr Speaker, I am coming much closer to this Bill now, and I shall do so immediately! [Interjections.]

There are literally hundreds of administrative arrangements which the State President is in charge of. We support the idea that, as is envisaged with this legislation, many of those duties be delegated to the Ministers mentioned in these laws. Having said that, we reiterate the fundamental standpoint of our party, and I just want to emphasise it once again. We still reject the idea of a mixed Cabinet. We reject power-sharing and remain convinced that the right of self-determination of peoples cannot be given proper expression in the present Constitution. When the rightist parties take over power in this country, the Constitution will be altered in such a way that the CP’s ethnic policy will be fully implemented.

Mr Speaker, the motivation for this measure is quite clear from the Second Reading Speech of the hon the Minister of Justice, and from the memorandum attached to the Bill, and I believe that it needs no further argument.

The hon member for Berea also referred to the course taken by the measure in the standing committee. I am in fact only rising to convey thanks and appreciation to the hon members of the standing committee for the way in which they, too, dealt with this measure.

The standing committee did not simply approve the proposed transfer of all the powers of the State President, but analysed each of the proposed transfers and deliberated on them at length. Indeed, out of the more than 200 possible transfers of powers, the standing committee decided in only four instances that those powers should continue to be vested in the State President. I believe that this attests to the thoroughness with which the standing committee performed its duty and function.

I reiterate that I am very grateful and appreciative of the way in which the hon members of the standing committee acquitted themselves of their task. I wish to convey a word of special thanks and appreciation to Advocate Rudman and the officials of the department who assisted the committee in the case of this Bill and also the three Bills which the House has just disposed of.

The fact that this House was able, this afternoon and this evening, to deal consecutively with four of the Bills which had been dealt with by this standing committee, and the fact that we were able to pilot these four measures through this House with the full agreement of all parties, is largely due to the officials of the department. I did not wish to allow this opportunity to pass without thanking them.

Mr Speaker, we support this legislation, but I must just add that it is wonderful to see what a salted attorney from the bushveld can make out of a totally administrative matter, and how he can actually make a political speech out of something which is really of a totally administrative nature.

*Hardened attorneys can make politics out of anything. [Interjections.] In this House one learns many things, and tonight we are still learning how to go about things. [Interjections.]

We Cape men stand together!

So, we say, the hon member Mr Theunissen for Vice State President! [Interjections.]

We support the measure.

Mr Speaker, I am replying to the debate in brief. The hon member for Mossel Bay very aptly referred to our officials. I also cannot fail to testify to their availability to members at all times to listen to problems, and to their preparation and appearance before the committee being so effective that we could reach consensus even on some of the more difficult aspects. To tell the truth, they make a complicated matter so simple that I am afraid hon members will begin to think Justice is a simple portfolio. [Interjections.] That is truly cause for concern. I should welcome it now and then if hon members were not so tremendously unanimous.

As far as the department is concerned, I can support every standpoint which has been made. I also wish to express my appreciation in this way.

The speeches by the hon members for Berea and Mossel Bay require no reply. The same applies to the speech made by the hon member for King William’s Town. I paid extensive attention to the points he made in respect of other Bills this evening.

That brings me to the hon member Mr Theunissen who in fact used the opportunity to project his political philosophy onto a future situation. I should like to put his mind at rest, however, that we have obviated that as well, and allowed a clause to slip in to dedicate “The Outspans Act” especially to the CP. The capacity the State President previously had to organise the recreation of political parties, will now reside with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Hon members are no doubt aware that many countries in the Western World have experienced particular economic problems during the past decade or two, resulting, inter alia in large-scale unemployment in those countries. The position in Third World countries is of course much worse. South Africa with its large Third World component, intermixed with a smaller First World part in its economy, has not been immune to the forces which have caused these problems.

As a result, there is today a greater measure of unemployment in the country than is conducive to internal order and stability. The Government has addressed this problem and has committed itself to steps to alleviate the position. Amongst such steps are the promotion of economic progress for all the peoples of South Africa, the encouragement of small business undertakings, the creation of jobs and the promotion of competition in business undertakings.

However, from studies which have been undertaken and from reports and requests addressed to the Government, it has become apparent that there are too many regulatory constraints which in some cases prevent the achievement of those objectives. The reasons for the overregulation of certain economic activities have been explained in the memorandum accompanying the Bill and I do not wish to dwell on them.

What is of importance is that time dictates that a mechanism be created which will facilitate the removal or modification of regulatory constraints in a much shorter time and over a much broader spectrum than would be possible through normal legislative and other deregulatory procedures. The Bill before Parliament has been introduced to meet that specific need.

The procedure which is provided for in the Bill may be regarded as extraordinary in its effect. However, as will be apparent from a reading of the various clauses, the necessary checks have been created to ensure that all proclamations issued in terms of it will be supported by Parliament. The Standing Committee on Home Affairs, to which the Bill was referred has tabled its report and supports the Bill subject to certain amendments.

The committee held extensive hearings and thoroughly considered the evidence submitted both in support and against the Bill. I wish to commend committee members for the able manner in which they dealt with these conflicting interests in the proposed amendments. I am aware that the inclusion of labour matters in the Bill has caused some concern amongst certain trade unions and other organisations. The amended Bill now requires that intended proclamations regarding such matters be published in the Gazette for comment. These comments will be considered by the standing committee of Parliament which will advise the State President regarding the issuing of the proclamations. This amendment will surely serve to dispel any doubts about the responsibility with which labour matters will be dealt with.

*Clause 1(1) provides that the State President may by proclamation suspend, wholly or in part, any law or condition, limitation or obligation thereunder, or grant exemption from the provisions thereof, if he is of the opinion that it unduly impedes the economic progress of the persons engaged in an undertaking, industry, trade or occupation or competition in the fields in question or the creation of job opportunities.

Since the needs may differ in accordance with the class of economic activity or the area in which, the class of persons by whom or the circumstances under which it is carried out or exercised, provision is made for such suspension or exemption to be adapted to the needs of a particular case. The necessary flexibility is thus created for the promotion of the economic development of the relevant persons, industries or areas.

I do, however, want to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that exercising the powers granted to the State President is subject to stringent provisions. Clause 1(2), for example, provides that an Act of Parliament or any condition, limitation or obligation thereunder, can be suspended, or exemption therefrom granted, only if, and to the extent to which, the Act relates to matters mentioned in the schedule. The matters mentioned in the schedule were identified by the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council and other bodies as being those areas in which limiting regulations unduly impeded economic development, small businesses, competition and the creation of job opportunities.

The clause also provides that a proclamation affecting an Act of Parliament can only be issued on the advice of a standing committee of Parliament. This measure not only provides for the compulsory consideration of such a proclamation by a parliamentary body, but will also ensure that it will be possible to act with due speed and urgency at all times, even during a Parliamentary recess. As I have indicated, proclamations dealing with labour matters mentioned in Part II of the schedule, will also be issued only on the advice of the standing committee, in accordance with the proposed amendment in clause 1(3).

The clause also provides that a proclamation shall not affect any existing service contract. The existing rights of workers in terms of such contracts will therefore not be affected by a proclamation. In order to promote consultation on such a proclamation, and to provide the standing committee with the comments of interested parties for its consideration, the new clause 1(5) provides that in such cases the draft of the proposed proclamation be published for comment in the Gazette.

Clause 2 makes provision for consultation with other interested parties and bodies. There will, of course, be the widest possible consultation on any matter prior to a proclamation being issued. In order to ensure that proclamations issued in terms of the Bill remain subject to parliamentary sanction, clause 3 provides for their being tabled in Parliament, or in the relevant House, as the case may be.

If Parliament, or the House in question, nullifies such a proclamation or provision, it ceases to be of any force or effect from the date on which it is nullified by the last of the three Houses. In all fairness, however, subsection (3) provides that such nullification shall not invalidate any rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued or incurred by the said date.

Clause 4 provides that the Act shall lapse on 31 March 1989. The progress made with the removal of restrictive regulations will indicate whether this period is sufficient for the completion of all the essential adjustments. In this regard I want to give hon members the assurance the Government is in favour of deregulation on an ongoing and permanent basis. The Bill is therefore not aimed merely at a single, temporary act of deregulation. Unnecessary restrictions on economic activity and unrealistic standards must not only be removed on a temporary basis, but should also be followed up by steps of a permanent nature. In future new regulation practices of a similar nature should also be prevented, particular attention also being given to the facility and the costs involved in complying with regulations, and also the flexibility of measures aimed at meeting the various needs of both the developed and developing sectors of our community.

It is the Government’s stated wish that each regulating body should critically examine its own position and make the necessary adjustments on its own initiative. In this connection the closest possible ongoing co-operation is necessary between the various bodies and the private sector with a view to promoting optimum economic growth.

The Bill can greatly assist all regulating bodies in achieving expeditious results. My staff will be available to assist the regulating bodies and the private sector in carrying out this task.

I trust that with the co-operation of all Government institutions and the private sector, it will speedily be possible to achieve the essential and urgently needed deregulation. On the strength of conversations I have thus far conducted with interested parties, I am personally convinced that we will, in fact, have the necessary enthusiasm and co-operation to ensure the success of this exercise.

The standing committee which considered the Bill, supported it with amendments. I accept the amendments and ask for Parliament’s understanding of, and support for, the measure.

Mr Speaker, when the original Bill was tabled, the introduction to the memorandum read as follows:

The above sets out in no uncertain terms that South Africa is a “world in one country”. There are people living under First World conditions as well as people living under Third World conditions, and this Bill will have far-reaching consequences in all areas and amongst all population groups throughout the length and breadth of South Africa.

The rapid urbanisation of our country has meant that many Third World rural dwellers have been forced by economic circumstances to come into our First World metropolitan areas. Despite many attempts to segregate people of colour into watertight compartments, economic factors reign supreme. At last, recognition is given to the fact that certain sections of our population suffer economic disabilities to make a living because of central Government laws and provincial ordinances as well as many municipal bylaws. Officials are employed by the various authorities in order to ensure that these provisions are carried out. They cannot be blamed for doing their duty; neither can they be allowed to turn a blind eye.

Our real problem in South Africa is a poverty problem. We overcame our poor-White question in the 1930s, but we must remember that they had the vote. In a similar manner we now have a poor-Black problem, but they do not have the vote. That makes our responsibility even greater. Therefore some form of deregulation must take place.

The PFP in its policy document is in favour of deregulation. Nevertheless, it had many misgivings about this Bill before it went to the standing committee, but we are pleased to note that during our deliberations, as a result of much evidence heard, we arrived at a Bill which is much improved and which we will support, though I must make it quite clear that we still have certain misgivings and shall watch the effects of this legislation in practice.

Under the direction of the hon member for Innesdal as chairman of the standing committee and through his great personal enthusiasm and zeal he was able to allow solutions to be effected in many cases by helping with amendments which served to improve the Bill. We are grateful to him for that. Mr G Vermaak of the Economic Advisory Services and Mr C Volschenk, the legal adviser, were also most helpful and considerate in helping us to arrive at a better Bill.

However, I want to make it quite clear that even the most powerful First World country in the West, namely the USA, saw fit to pass the Regulatory Flexibility Act in 1981 for the better federal treatment of small entities. In other words, the USA even passed a deregulation bill as far back as 1981. I should like to quote a few things from that particular Bill:

Here are some findings and purposes as to why this Act was necessary. They were given by their standing committee. Firstly, uniform regulatory and reporting requirements have in numerous instances imposed unnecessary and disproportionately burdensome demands including legal, accounting and consulting costs upon small businesses, small organisations and small governmental jurisdictions with limited resources. Secondly, the failure to recognise differences in the scale and resources of regulated entities has in numerous instances adversely affected competition in the marketplace, discouraged innovation and restricted improvements in productivity. Thirdly, unnecessary regulations create entry barriers in many industries and discourage potential entrepreneurs from introducing beneficial products and processes. Fourthly, the practice of treating all regulated businesses, organisations and governmental jurisdictions as equivalent may lead to inefficient use of regulatory agency resources, enforcement problems and, in some cases, to actions inconsistent with the legislative intent of health, safety, environmental and economic welfare legislation.

The purpose of my dealing with this is to show that what has been done in the United States highlights the fact that even in a highly industrialised, wealthy First World country it has become as necessary to deregulate as it is in South Africa where the First and Third Worlds have to live side by side economically.

There is a plethora of Acts of Parliament, regulations under such Acts, provincial ordinances with their regulations and municipal bylaws that are unduly impeding the economic progress of all sorts of people engaged in all sorts of undertakings, industry, trade or occupations. A short cut must be found to suspend whatever hindrance there may be or to grant some form of exemption. It can be applied to a specific class of undertaking, a specific area or class of persons, or specific circumstances.

We had to find a key in order to do this. The key was to give the State President the right to issue proclamations, and to ensure that he can only act on the advice of a standing committee of this Parliament. That means that he will not be free to make proclamations as he likes. He can only do so on the advice of a standing committee which is part of this Parliament. In this way Parliament can retain a certain amount of control. The basic problem is to find a method of doing this without giving the State President draconian powers, and at the same time directly retaining the powers of Parliament.

The question will arise: Why the State President and not a Minister? It would have been preferable to have placed this power in the hands of a Minister, but then he would have had to interfere in the legislation of other Ministers. For that reason it was decided that, as the State President per se would be senior over all his Ministers, the Ministers could not take umbrage at his particular actions.

The final report of the standing committee bears testimony to the deep consideration given to this problem by the members of all three Houses and much evidence was called for and heard which allowed us to come to a decision. The pile of documents I have in my hands is indicative of the volume of evidence that was heard by this committee over a period of almost two months. This evidence came, inter alia, from employer organisations, universities, foundations and even trade unions. I regret that all my personal efforts to persuade certain Black trade unions which are beginning to play an important part in our economy, failed to get them to appear, and I trust that somehow in the future the committee will still endeavour to hear their point of view, because it is among the Blacks of South Africa, particularly in the informal sector, that most problems are encountered. Fortunately, there were people serving on the committee who in their private business lives had served both in management and in labour and trade union organisations.

This Bill is therefore a result of compromise, and experience will show whether it can work or whether it will be necessary to amend it.

The evidence given covered three main fields, namely those wholly in favour, those who accepted the principle with reservations, and those completely against. It was in the labour field that most opposition was encountered because it is a sensitive issue on whether rights which have been won after years of effort should be tampered with. For example, the question of suspending unemployment insurance or workmen’s compensation temporarily was considered very carefully. The committee was not convinced that these should be tampered with and therefore these were omitted from the Bill.

Consultation was requested by every particular body which gave evidence. The problem was that they requested that the new standing committee should try to consult everyone before a proclamation was issued. This would have been impossible. The mechanism suggested by the PFP was finally adopted, for which we are grateful, namely the issuing of proclamations in the first instance as draft proclamations in the Government Gazette and asking for comment from the public. Such comment may cause the standing committee either not to proceed with the proclamation or to amend it in some form or another or to leave it in its original form before advising the State President to issue the final proclamation.

However, a very important principle was adopted. All matters affecting labour were put into a separate section of the schedule to the Bill and such draft proclamations can now only be issued after consultation with the Department of Manpower which by the nature of its work is always close to all labour organisations whether they be employers or employees. Secondly—and this is also very important—no existing contract of employment, ie industrial council agreement or wage determination, can be tampered with.

The PFP would have liked the committee to have agreed that in the case of labour matters, because of their sensitive nature, the new standing committee could only act with the concurrence of the Minister of Manpower. However, it was agreed that consultation was as far as the committee was prepared to go, so that in effect it could issue proclamations against the judgment of the Minister of Manpower. We in this House all know, however, that they would do so at their peril if this were ever to happen.

Parliament could still play its vital role in that all proclamations must be tabled in this House or in all three Houses, and Parliament can annul a proclamation. However, let me say that this is no easy task because experience has shown over the years that the governing party is usually loath to annul any of its proclamations made in respect of many, many Acts. Too much store must therefore not be set by this.

It is interesting to read through the diversity of evidence in order to see the conflicting interests that had to be considered by the committee in reaching its final decision. The selection of only a few views show the wide range of subjects covered. For example the Small Business Development Corporation dealt with various impediments suffered particularly by Blacks in respect of the issue of licences and the restrictive nature of Black legislation. It asked for the removal of influx control, which happened a few weeks later, and recommended low-cost housing as well as the amendment of shop-hour ordinances and the elimination of the permit system under the Road Transportation Act, which in any event is going to happen at some stage in the future.

The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut felt that too many South African standards in respect of such matters as building regulations and factory regulations were far too high; that home-ownership by Blacks in urban areas was presenting problems and should be thoroughly investigated, and that freehold was necessary. They also proposed a very strange thing in recommending that shebeens should be totally deregulated. They were emphatic on consultation and said that deregulation must be done carefully in order to avoid even greater problems. They specifically mentioned that the Estate Agents Act, for instance, in respect of Black townships and ownership would have to be investigated in detail.

The Free Market Foundation on the other hand felt that too high standards were a barrier to entry into a free-market system, because this brought about an increasing concentration of economic activity. They felt that regulations tended to politicise issues and said for instance that the rigid regulation of transport was a basic reason why buses were stoned in Black townships as soon as unrest occurred. On the other hand, combi taxis which operated freely were hardly ever touched. They dealt with problems in the homelands, locations and townships in respect of education, labour, housing and transport, and stated that even the simplest economic opportunities were impeded, giving rise to Blacks blaming the Government for racism. Racism and capitalism were therefore equated, and another system other than the free-market system, for instance communism, seemed preferable to many Blacks. This is an important issue for the standing committee to consider in the future. It was emphasised—I will deal with it later—that a promotional and publicity campaign was imperative to allay fears.

The Department of Manpower, for instance, dealt fully with the question of labour relations and said how imperative it was not to interfere unduly. They specifically pointed out that future standing committees must beware of making regulations imposing the relaxation of certain conditions, especially with regard to the granting of exemptions.

The Black Urban Councils Association felt that the Bill would go a long way to making trading by Blacks easier because at the moment they were being frustrated by bureaucratic restrictions. This sort of evidence shows the multiplicity of problems that will be faced by this committee, and these are only a few examples of the evidence given to show what the nature and task of the new standing committee will be.

In conclusion, let me warn the hon the Minister and the new standing committee of the extremely delicate nature of their work. [Interjections.] We are at present under a state of emergency which we hope will soon be lifted. This committee can play a big role in the future in easing the tensions that exist, and I would commend to them one of the important observations of the Tjaart van der Walt Commission on Unrest in the Vaal Triangle in 1984, viz:

If the hon the Minister and the new standing committee on deregulation consider every deed that is performed in terms of the above admonition, it will ensure the success of this Bill which we trust, despite our reservations, will provide for greater economic activity among all our population groups to build a peaceful South Africa.

This can only be possible if, at the outset, after this Bill has been signed by the State President, we call meetings in all the major metropolitan areas as well as in country areas to hear and discuss these grievances. People of all colour and cultural groups must be approached so that communication can be established at the earliest possible date. Legitimate grievances must not fall on deaf ears; they must be listened to and dealt with expeditiously. There must be no mistrust and suspicion because everyone, rich or poor, Black or White, young or old must have the opportunity to express what grievances they have which impede their economic opportunity and activity. This Bill may assist in bringing peace to our wonderful country, and the onus is now on the hon the Minister. We will support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, this is in my opinion, probably one of the most important Bills we shall be promulgating during this short session. Years ago I made a study in Durban on the rebuilding of a Black town. I shall never forget how beautifully, according to our abilities, the town was planned and rebuilt. Previously there had been a large number of Black women who traded in that town, but after we were finished with that beautiful town, they were no longer allowed to operate there. There were little white houses without souls.

I can also refer to our own history, which affects many of us who are sitting here today. I shall never forget a visit I paid during the war years to my father’s sister, who was a widow in Robertson. I still remember how eight women were making clothes in the parlour. Today that is no longer possible, because as time has marched on, we have become steadily less self-sufficient and we have increasing suppressed the initiative of our people.

What is the State’s function? The Government must create a climate in which the business world can flourish, wellbeing can be created and in which employment is able to increase. According to our Constitution we believe in a capitalistic system. We also believe, where possible, in furthering the free market. I must say that occasionally considerable criticism has been levelled at this, but it follows from our constitution that we should grant the individual opportunities in our society.

No organisation can exist without rules and regulations, however. Surely we know that there must be discipline, because freedom is only possible when there is discipline. That is why one tries to regulate one’s society in its process of development in a better way so as to create order and stability. That is also what we have been striving to achieve through some of our legislation, which is probably among the best in the Western world. Regulation and intervention are like a pendulum, however, since we move from limited intervention to excessive interference. Unfortunately interference does not always occur for good reasons. Interference often occurs in order to prevent competition, as is the case of interest groups who have fought to establish their position and in so doing, build a historical position of power. They are usually those who fight the hardest when those vested interests and the regulations which protect them are threatened.

What is the effect of overregulation, especially on small businesses? I do not know how many members have close contact with the small businessman. In this regard one need only think of the number of forms which have to be completed. There are for example the interminable forms which have to be completed for statistical purposes, or income tax forms for example.

Manpower!

Yes, there are also the forms of the Department of Manpower. It is high time one gave attention to this so that the small businessman is not snowed under with forms which he has to complete.

Forms are not the only problem. The point I have just made refers to another, in that there are many interest groups that try to impede competition. They try to prevent the entry of small undertakings to the market. One of the most important principles of the competition is in fact to be allowed to enter the market. Yet we have made it very difficult for the small undertaking to enter the market because of the multitude of regulations such as health, factory and labour regulations. I shall give only one example in this regard. A year ago a lecture was given on the temperature in factories. It was shown that a certain temperature must be maintained in factories in order to protect the worker. If those requirements had to be complied with there would probably not be a single small factory in South Africa, because no one can afford it.

The temporary lifting of restrictions on economic activities could of course clash with the essential protection of the worker, the consumer as well as the general public. A conflict may arise concerning the question of the quality of life of our people. If, for example, one takes a walk in Istanbul and sees those people who walk around like workhorses—they can no longer walk upright—one wonders whether there should not be regulations to protect the quality of life of those people. We also have the Trade Practices Act so that we can prevent activities such as the kubus activities gaining a foothold in our South African market.

This Government strives—the Bill before us is proof of that—to create a balance between the essential protection of certain groups, such as the consumer, the worker, and the maximum freedom of the business world to grow. I think that is a very important aspect. One should not allow oneself to be swept along by the idea of deregulation, because protection should always be given to the labourer and the consumer. Everything cannot simply be taken away; a balance must be created between these two poles.

In this Bill considerable protection as well as safety clauses have been introduced. The criticism against this Bill was that too much power was being vested in the State President. Then there was also the question which the hon member for Bezuidenhout put so succinctly. The question was: Why the State President? Why not the other departments? One of the most important reasons is that the office of the State President is not as bound by departmental laws and traditions.

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

Yes, with pleasure.

Mr Speaker, we have just passed a Bill which relieves the State President of certain duties because his workload is too great. Now this hon member says we should add this to his load. Does he not think this work should rather be delegated to someone else?

When one speaks of the State President, one does not speak of him only as an individual. He has a staff, after all, as well as the hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services and such people to assist him. [Interjections.] Yes, I am talking about the hon the Minister of Administration and Economic Advisory Services in the office of the State President. When one thinks of the general manager of an office, one realises that he does not stand in isolation because he has people to assist him. I therefore think the hon member’s question is somewhat irrelevant. [Interjections.]

What are the safety aspects in regard to this legislation? Firstly the State President can act only with regard to matters specified in the schedules. I think the fact that the schedule consists of two parts, is a great improvement. Part 2 of the schedule relates to manpower in particular. That is the aspect of this Bill which may give rise to the greatest problem when it becomes law. I can mention an example regarding labourers. Years ago we tried to encourage the clothing industry in decentralised areas. We had the situation that the wages and salaries in the clothing industry in urban areas were determined by the Industrial Court, while in the rural areas they were determined by the Wage Board. I think the powers of the Industrial Court in the Transvaal also applied in the rural areas. There was no small clothing factory in the rural areas, however, in which the Industrial Court determined the wages and salaries for Black workers. It was quite a struggle to solve that problem. I consider the question of manpower as the most important problem regarding the enforcement of this legislation once it is enacted. I therefore think it is a very good addition to involve the hon the Minister of Manpower in this matter.

It is also important that the above-mentioned action can take place only upon the advice of a Parliamentary standing committee. I think that is very important because it gives the standing committee the chance to call witnesses to make worthwhile contributions, which could also be objective in my opinion. Furthermore it is very important that each proclamation can be nullified by Parliament. One finds the same thing in the British Parliament. Laws that are changed have to go through the British Parliament, while regulations can be changed by means of proclamations. We should also remember that this legislation is temporary, because it will be terminated on 31 March 1989.

It is interesting to note that there are 11 matters in the schedule which can be considered. I hope some of them can be expanded. The similar legislation by the British Parliament contains 80 such matters.

When one considers the most important regulations which in fact impede growth and development, Black urban development heads the list. Over the past weekend the Press also referred to this, and we should be very honest with one another about this. We are going to spend large amounts on urban development, especially Black urban development. Now the question arises as to whether we do not perhaps have too many regulations which are going to prevent us from implementing our plans.

When one talks to members of Nafcoc these days, one realises how difficult it is for the Blacks to start businesses. We have already removed many impediments, but a tremendous number of problems remain. I have already referred to the tremendous amount of paperwork, including statistics, revenue forms etc.

I have also referred to the question of discrimination in respect of remuneration in the labour legislation. Should one discriminate, and if so in what way?

One of the most detrimental regulations we have, does not come from the State, but from our professional bodies. They are acknowledged in terms of the law, and when they want to effect something it is announced by means of regulation. Many of the most obstructive regulations in these professional bodies—I do not want to mention names—is the admission of people to those professions in practice.

The same is true for trade unions. In New York, for example, there is always a shortage of taxis, while unemployment is rife. The trade unions prevent more taxis from operating in the city of New York, however. In future we must ensure that discriminatory regulations of this nature are gradually removed—I think the Competition Board is paying attention to this—so that the admission of the small businessman to the business world can be facilitated and it will be possible for him to be successful.

It is a pleasure to support this Bill, because I think we can expand it extensively.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Waterkloof made some very interesting comments in regard to this Bill. It has the rather awesome title of the Temporary Removal of Restrictions on Economic Activities Bill, but I think it will come to be known more simply for what it is, and that is the Deregulation Bill. I agree with what the hon member for Waterkloof said about it. It is going to blow like a breath of fresh air through not only this House but also the country in the months and years to come.

Deregulation is today’s “buzzword”. I read an interesting article on one of our major banks in a journal that has just come to hand and which most hon members will have received. While waiting for this measure to come before us I was looking at an interview with Mr Chris Ball who is well known as the chief executive of Barclays Bank. He was asked the following question:

Mr Ball replied as follows:

He then went on to deal with other aspects of his business.

Later in the same journal one finds a pictorial chapter entitled Down to Basics. It gives one a series of photographs of situations in a township which is in my constituency. They misspelt the name, incidentally; the area is Amaoti and not Amouti as they spelt it. However, in Amaoti there are Black entrepreneurs and Indians, I might say, who have set up small businesses, and it is interesting to see the sort of operations which we are dealing with here and the sort of situation that we hope to deal with.

During the deliberations of the standing committee which, I think consisted of a series of interesting sessions, we dealt with conflicting and completely opposite views. I was convinced that we would never find a solution acceptable to all, and as a matter of fact I still believe that because we certainly have not found a solution acceptable to all. I do not think that one ever will with this type of measure.

You are quite right.

However, I want to say the Bill before us now is quite a different creature from the one which was originally before the standing committee. It is noteworthy that the report which was produced by the standing committee—an excellent report which I would earnestly urge all hon members to read because it is comprehensive and makes good and interesting reading—spells out three main areas of reaction from a very, very broad spectrum of South African opinion, including business, organised commerce and labour. The three areas of reaction were, firstly, those of unconditional acceptance; secondly, those who accepted it with reservations; and thirdly, there was complete opposition.

Then this report goes on to list its findings and recommendations, including the fact that it feels that a permanent committee should be established to handle cases in connection with deregulation arising from this Bill; and furthermore, that there should be an ongoing investigation of matters concerning privatisation and competition. We must also remember the important recommendation in respect of the Competition Board and the important role it can play in what we are seeking to achieve.

This measure is long overdue because there is no shadow of doubt that we are overregulated in this current economic climate. We can ill afford the continuation of the unemployment situation we have in the country at the moment. However, I would like to remind hon members in this House and the hon the Minister of three interesting points that arose in evidence in the standing committee. I think these three points should be quoted. I jotted them down at the time because I believed they were important and that we should always remember them.

Firstly, the gentleman from the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut who said that in his opinion “this Bill has been framed to solve problems and not to create them”. I think that is a very interesting remark.

Secondly, there was the comment made by the gentleman who represented the Small Businesses Development Corporation. Incidentally, he supported and encouraged the acceptance of the Bill. However, he said that he did not believe “that the spirit of this Bill is aimed at reducing protection of employees”. He followed this up by saying; “If we thought this to be the case we would not support it.” That was a second interesting observation. I believe that in that observation lies a major dilemma, namely the conflict between those representing the organised labour unions who see the Bill as a danger as opposed to those representing employers in commerce and trade and industry generally who can only see the benefits, notwithstanding the competition that it will create for them. I give them full marks for that.

Finally, the third interesting observation came from the representative of FCI. He advocated caution. His words were:

Therein lies the biggest danger of all, in my opinion.

This measure is a sincere attempt to promote the small businessman—the entrepreneur and the little man in the townships—and while we accept that there must be a measure of control, I think we would do well to remember that this control must be kept to the absolute minimum if those people are to be allowed to promote their businesses and to get on with what we hope they will do, namely give the economy a shot in the arm.

It is with pleasure that this party supports the Bill. However, we note that in terms of an amendment before us the Act will cease to have effect on 31 March 1989. We trust, however, that in the intervening period we will see not only the much needed results of deregulation but also the framing of new legislation that will ensure a continuance of the benefits that must be derived from the results of this Bill with the passage of time. We support the measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umhlanga made a very interesting speech. He pointed out several problems which will be experienced in future, too, but I thank him for his support for the legislation.

The question has already been asked why the State President has to grant these exemptions. I want to suggest, with all due respect, that this is an extremely far-reaching measure. It is true that the State President can suspend legislation. He can grant exemptions in respect of legislation, and it is important to note that these are almost unlimited powers. These are unlimited powers in respect of regulations and ordinances not promulgated by this Parliament. But when it comes to the legislation of Parliament, they are limited by the schedules, and when it comes to labour aspects, further restrictions are being imposed. The fact remains, however, that this is extremely far-reaching legislation, which bestows great power upon the State President. That is why that power and the discretion of granting exemptions ought to be vested in the highest authoritative body in the country.

But you are restricting him just a little. [Interjections.]

Sir, would the hon member like to give him completely unlimited powers?

And what if Pik’s man becomes State President?

The hon members must place it on record, if that is their standpoint. [Interjections.]

In recent years it has been the policy in various Western countries to ensure the establishment of small business undertakings and to deregulate. Countries that can be mentioned in this connection are the USA, Britain, the Netherlands and West Germany. All of these countries launched very active programmes in this connection. The two principles on which these programmes were based were on the one hand that small business undertakings are very productive in regard to the creation of employment opportunities, and on the other that regulations in particular have an inhibiting effect on small undertakings. The argument, therefore, is that when the regulations are curtailed, there will be more small business undertakings, and consequently more employment opportunities.

The figures support this argument very dramatically. In the USA factory undertakings with fewer than 20 employees were responsible, between the years 1976 and 1982, for 56% of the growth in the total employment provision in that sector. Manufacturers with fewer than a 100 employees were responsible for 81,4% of the total growth in employment provision in the manufacturing sector. During the same years—that is between 1976 and 1982—new undertakings with fewer than a 100 workers resulted in 8,7 million new employment opportunities in America.

In Australia, between the years 1978 and 1981, factory undertakings with fewer than a 100 employees showed a growth of 4,7% in the number of employees. During that period, large undertakings showed a growth of only 0,9%. It is important to note that 95% of the factory undertakings in Australia are undertakings that employ fewer than 100 people. In Taiwan, small to medium-size undertakings comprise 95% of the total. They produce 55% of the gross national product and afford 70% of the total employment opportunities. In Japan, too, 81,4% of the employment opportunities are provided by small to medium-size undertakings.

If one considers the results of deregulation, they too appear to be considerable. In the USA as well the percentage growth in employment opportunities of small business undertakings that were deregulated was considerably greater than that of those undertakings that had not been deregulated. One of the great advantages of deregulation is that it saves the undertaking costs, particularly the small undertaking, because it is relatively time-consuming for the person in control of such an undertaking, and particularly the owner, to comply with these regulations. He simply does not have enough time for that, it inhibits his initiative and frequently, too, he does not have enough money to comply with them.

It also saves the State costs. In the USA it has been calculated that one-off deregulation resulted in savings of between R9 billion and R11 billion. This brought about an annual saving of R6 billion for the American Government and the business sector.

In South Africa the picture is quite different from the one I have just presented. Small business undertakings in South Africa provide employment to only 25% to 37% of the persons in the private sector who are affected by business censuses. They afford further employment opportunities to only 8,7% to 12,7% of the labour market. If one considers the contribution of this sector to new employment opportunities, these figures are even more dramatic. I compared these figures with those of America. Their undertakings with fewer than 20 employees, contributed 56% and those with fewer than 100 employees, 81% to new employment opportunities, but in South Africa the figures are only 2,9% and 16%, respectively. The big difference of course is that our informal sector in South Africa is far more important than that of these other countries, and also that the growth in the informal sector has been far greater and more rapid.

Various studies in this connection have been carried out, and if one looks at the figures, one realises that 33% of the Soweto’s productive labour force is involved in the informal sector. In Crossroads the figure is 50%, in Nyanga 55%, in certain rural areas of kwaZulu 73%, in the Transkei 76% and in kwaNdebele 30%. I think that if one looks at this matter, one should also look at concentration in the South African economy. Here, 19% of the undertakings are responsible for 75% of the turnover in the industrial sector, 70% of the turnover in the wholesale and retail industry, and 74% of the turnover in the construction sector. It is therefore absolutely important that as far as the informal sector is concerned a stimulus be given to the small business sector.

The report of the President’s Council which became available in October 1985 came forward with quite a number of interesting recommendations. I should like to refer to page 95 of this report—Report of the Committee for Economic Affairs on A Strategy for Small Business Development and for Deregulation—on which the following recommendation is made:

This is almost an obvious conclusion, but it is really something which must become part of every South African and also of every legislator in South Africa, however, limited his legislative powers may be.

The President’s Council also arrived at another very important conclusion. I am again quoting from page 95 of the report:

The President’s Council therefore put forward the proposal that greater powers should be given to the State President to rescind legislation that has a restrictive effect by way of a measure such as this.

In particular I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the standing committee very sincerely on the fact that this legislation also deals with labour matters. It is a simple fact that the inflexibility of industrial council agreements at that stage, and in the situation in which our economy finds itself at present, is making a major contribution to unemployment. I know of cases where entrepreneurs have gone to industrial councils with the proposal that they were prepared to employ more people if only the minimum wages could be reduced to two thirds of the existing wages. There are many people who would be prepared to work for those wages. The industrial councils, however, are simply too inflexible and too unfair to comply with those requests.

Are you advocating a lowering of minimum wages?

I want to express the hope that this measure will be used to make a contribution in this case.

This measure must not be seen only as a measure to encourage small business. The provisions of the measure are also wide enough to stimulate major projects that have been held back for years by regulations and unfair requirements, and to free them from unnecessary regulations. I want to express the hope that this measure will also be used for that purpose. In that way we will also be able to create employment opportunities, and do so far more rapidly.

The hon member for Waterkloof said that this was one of the most important pieces of legislation of this session. However, I want to differ with him and tell him I think it is one of the most important pieces of legislation of this year. It is one thing to create legislation as a vehicle by means of which deregulation can be assisted. It is another question whether it is going to be used. I want to suggest categorically that there is a great responsibility resting on the private sector to make use of this measure as well. I want to make an appeal to the private sector to make use of it.

I gladly support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Schutte pointed to the importance of this Bill and he did so correctly as it is indeed a very important Bill. Furthermore it is a Bill to which the standing committee contributed a very great deal. I think the function that they fulfilled was invaluable and will prove to be so during the operation of this legislation.

The State President asked the Economic Affairs Committee of the President’s Council in 1984 to advise on a strategy to increase the participation of the developing section of the community in the free-enterprise system. It was to consider all the regulations, laws and instructions that could hamper the small business sector. The committee produced a good report which stated, inter alia:

It recommended legislation which would empower the State President to cut through this type of hindrance and release small business from the handicaps that it had traditionally suffered in this way.

It is, however, more than ironic that the man who is responsible for marshalling almost 40% of White workers into Government service to regulate our lives and has moved Government spending from R10 900 million in 1977 to R37 500 million only nine years later is now to be given extraordinary and unprecedented powers to cut through the administrative tangle for which he is largely responsible.

F W says they know best! [Interjections.]

Who was responsible, then?

Just as extraordinary is the fact that we are prepared to accord him such powers, for he has never shown any understanding of the free-enterprise system that I have been able to discern. So serious is this situation, however, that someone actually has to assist business to release itself by cutting through this type of restriction, and consequently we have no option but to support this measure. We will do so, but we hope we are not expected to thank the Government for putting it in the Statute Book.

What was the objective behind the instructions given to the Economic Affairs Committee? I think that certain things had begun to dawn on the Government. Instead of the projected growth rate envisaged by the economic development programme of 4% to 5% per annum for the nine years ending in 1982, the economic growth rate was such that per capita growth was totally static. Since 1982 the growth rate of the economy has not been sufficient even to maintain the standard of living of the average South African. The per capita share of the gross domestic product has, in fact, declined.

Unemployment was rising and out of control; Blacks were becoming increasingly disillusioned with their share of the political economy; the Black community had become fertile ground for Marxism and other hostile ideologies; and apartheid was, in fact, simply not working. For a number of reasons the South African economy was not producing one of the miracles which got us out of trouble so frequently in the past. Economists and political scientists were seeking some strategy other than the export of manufactured goods or import replacement. Increasingly, influx control was seen as counterproductive, but there was already high unemployment in the cities. Deregulation, small business development and the release of the informal sector to seek its fortune as had been done in other parts of the world, coinciding with urbanisation, became an increasingly attractive alternative.

Will the Bill before the House succeed in releasing a new dynamic in the economy and help promote a non-discriminatory society? That is what we must hope for and what we must try to ensure. For years this Government has recklessly gone its own way as if it were the only member of the international community, relying on other nations self-interest, our strength in natural resources and our strategic position to safeguard us. Now the rest of the world has taken up that challenge. We are increasingly ostracised, sanctions are about to be imposed, and the Government’s reaction, as it turns at bay at the end of a cul-de-sac, is defiance—lest a brainwashed electorate realises how criminally stupid it has been. This increases immeasurably the problem of wealth and employment creation.

South Africa is caught between a population doubling in numbers every 26 years and a stagnant economy. Technological advancement in the process of manufacture tends to require less labour, not more. Labour intensive methods of manufacture are not the answer. The unemployment problem would be easily solved by putting up previous-generation manufacturing plants if labour intensive means of manufacture were the answer to unemployment.

Order! It seems to me there are hon members who think that it is in order to converse loudly when they occupy seats other than their own. The hon member may proceed.

The answer would appear to lie in small and informal business, particularly small manufacturers, frequently engaging in subcontracting for the major industries who find that there are advantages in many different areas in doing this. They give the big companies flexibility and frequently enable them to sidestep industrial relations problems. This is something that is being done increasingly and on a very large scale in the United States. There, manufacturing concerns with fewer than 20 employees were responsible for 56% of the total employment growth in that sector between 1976 and 1982.

The committee report states the following:

What people must understand is that as a result of misgovernment and consequent lack of growth in the economy, a tidal wave of unemployment was building up long before people were seriously considering the sanctions threat. It was necessary to devise some means by which the informal sector and the small business sector could develop in the circumstances. It is now even more imperative that we do that.

Sanctions, which are the most ill-considered, superficial and morally questionable policy that could ever have been devised, will have one certain result: They will cause structural upheaval in the economy and unemployment. Privatisation, deregulation and the release of the informal sector from bondage are now top priorities. Where could the problems lie with the implementation of this strategy?

Firstly, it is against the nature of our politicians and army of public servants not to interfere. They believe that to earn their salaries they must be administering somebody, whereas frequently they would be worth far more to us if they would just leave us alone. From the State President down, despite the lip service paid to free enterprise, it is difficult to find anyone who has any genuine understanding of how it works. The belief seems to be that direct controls are bad, but that indirect controls are kosher. That is nonsense. It is in the power of government to distort an economy as severely through massive indirect involvement as through direct controls, and the decentralisation debacle should actually prove to be an example of that.

I am not at all sure that in the amendment which splits the schedule to the Act into two parts, we are not witnessing the beginnings of interference. This provides that a proclamation which deals with part two, namely manpower matters, can only be made after consultation with the Minister of Manpower. Deregulation and promotion of the informal sector will always be uncomfortable to vested interests with powerful lobbies such as public servants, whose empires have to be protected, and established trade and industry, which has developed the skills and resources to handle a plethora of controls and which now of course has a certain degree of protection by virtue of its ability to handle those regulations.

Why are you so negative about the Public Service? [Interjections.]

I shall come to that presently.

The trade unions which have won conditions of service that growth of the informal sector could erode, also have something to protect. With great effort and over a long period of time they have won certain conditions, but the informal sector could erode those conditions. Local authorities relying on the support of particular interest groups are also bodies with something to protect. They have a vested interest, as do professional associations.

Do we really expect the informal manufacturer of burglar bars, who is working in some back yard in some Black township, to pay unemployment insurance? Do we think that workmen’s compensation returns can be produced by someone who probably has virtually no education but who can turn out burglar bars that somebody wants to buy, at probably half the cost at which they are being produced by a major industry at the moment?

In this country, while doing precisely the opposite, we have made the endorsement of popular concepts a characteristic of Government. The State President, for example, who runs one of the most authoritarian societies in the world, compensates for this by larding his speeches with commitments to freedom. [Interjections.] He did so dozens of times at the Durban congress. We have been plugging deregulation for a long trine but in practice we are still loading vegetable sellers into “Black Marias” for trying to earn a living by serving a legitimate market.

The two summonses which I have here were issued against people in Rink Street, Port Elizabeth, on 2 July this year. One is for hawking without a licence and the other for hawking in a prohibited area. If we prevent people from supplying a demand which definitely exists, we are denying them access to the informal sector and are doing precisely the things which this Bill is designed to prevent happening. These two summonses were issued against women who were selling tomatoes in Rink Street in July this year. How seriously do we take the committee’s statement that access to markets is a fundamental precondition for participation? If we deny people access to the market, we are just talking a lot of hot air. We are not serious about deregulation if we do not accept the untidiness of a clash between the informal sector and vested interests.

The President’s Council committee report on measures which restrict the functioning of the free-market system makes it clear that it regards the shortage of entrepreneurs as one of the greatest obstacles to economic development. We agree, but would like to make certain observations about entrepreneurs.

Firstly, they cannot be created through training like doctors or accountants. They are self-motivated and self-created. Secondly, one cannot identify potential entrepreneurs; they select themselves. Thirdly, just as a farmer can increase the numbers of game on his farm by ensuring that the environmental conditions are correct for game, a government can increase the number of entrepreneurs by creating an environment in which they can flourish. This is achieved more by the removal of man-made impediments to progress than by positive assistance.

Business failure, it must be understood, is part of the free-enterprise system. The entrepreneur accepts this risk. Sources should not be allocated to save the lame ducks. Equally, however, Government should allow the successful entrepreneur to retain his profits without taxing him out of existence. In times of serious recession it is better to use available resources to assist business with a proven track record than to try to launch fledgling enterprises. New businesses should be encouraged when the economy starts to improve. In this regard I quote from the committee report:

One thought that comes to mind on the matter of entrepreneurs highlights the mess this Government has got South Africa into. More than one in three Whites works for the State. He is a member of the best-educated and trained section of the community. He is pampered and protected and indulged and expected to vote the right way come election time. Contributions to his pension scheme are of the order of 35% of remuneration. He has generous housing loans. In times of stringency, when the private sector has to lay off hundreds of thousands of people, he has job security. His pay scale, increments and benefits generally exceed those available to the private sector. Is it not an anomaly that we should be seeking our entrepreneurs from a Black population that has had inadequate education and inadequate exposure to private enterprise and commercial and industrial skills, while over one third of the White workforce is on such a good wicket that it would not venture its money, its efforts and leisure on the unpredictable sea of free enterprise?