Mr Speaker, in the discussion of the Vote of the hon the State President we heard different opinions, opinions affecting the very essence of politics in South Africa.

Upon assessing these opinions, one can say that some of them are irreconcilable standpoints on which the voters will have to decide at the next general election. The unitary state advocated by some fortuitously makes provision for ethnic and group diversity. Fortuitously! Others go further and demand drastic action to make South Africa a kind of second “melting pot”. What it amounts to, is that basically there is only one political community of approximately 29 million individuals in which the ethnic and cultural differences will have to disappear too in the long run, or perhaps straight away.

In this regard we hear the refrain of the antiapartheid movement. That is the movement that regards all own political and social structures as something evil and wants to destroy them. The DP has laid its cards on the table. This party stands for one man, one vote in a unitary state with open voters’ rolls in a non-racial community. I think I have summarised it correctly; that is how it was reported. [Interjections.] We can clarify this at a later stage!

It is consistent liberalism in its rejection of national units, national states and a plurality of political authoritarian bodies for different peoples. It is consistent liberalism.

There are those who advocate an open democracy that will gradually have to be introduced throughout South Africa.

I hope I am wrong, but I seem to think that occasionally I heard an echo of something that I want to describe as Afrikaner hatred. If I heard incorrectly, I shall be very pleased. However, there are people who expect the Afrikaners to stop existing as a separate people with an own language and a separate place amongst the peoples of the world and amongst the nations and peoples of Southern Africa. According to those people we would still be able to continue to exist as White individuals, with the emphasis on the individuals, within the so-called large entity which will no doubt engulf us as a people. However, it would still amount to the death of a people.

The same people who cursed Hitler when his troops forced the Netherlands into subjection and who rejoiced when the Netherlands and Norway offered resistance to the invitation to allow their small nations to be engulfed by the so-called wider and greater German empire, see their way clear in the case of South Africa to mingle peoples, race groups and ethnic groups in a non-racial community. How does one explain this inconsistency? What kind of basic view of humanity and peoples is this?

It is not the first time that we as a people have been forced to fight. We have been fighting to survive as a nation for almost two centuries. It was a political struggle against imperialism; it was a language and cultural struggle against enforced Anglicisation and it was a national struggle to survive as a people. It was also a military struggle against those who wanted to conquer us by force of arms. It was a philosophical struggle against ideologies such as national socialism and liberalism. According to some, it was a stubborn, stupid struggle, probably just as stubborn and stupid as that of the Flemish in Belgium; probably just as stupid and stubborn as that of the Greeks in Cyprus and perhaps as stupid as that of Israel in the midst of millions in Arabian states.

Perhaps it is as stupid as the nationalist struggle of certain Russian republics in the Soviet Union; perhaps as stupid as the Ciskei that does not want to unite with the Transkei; perhaps as stupid as the Rehoboth people … [Interjections.] The hon member must please not talk too much.

Perhaps as stupid as the Rehoboth people who refuse to accept a Swapo government in Windhoek, or the Herero people who are not pleased with the attention they are getting from certain Untag members.

Perhaps it is as “stupid” as the Coloured community of Kleinskool in Port Elizabeth that asked the Government to proclaim the area in which it lives to be a Brown group area so that Blacks cannot settle there. They are a small Brown community, and there was an article on them in Die Burger of 9 March 1988. According to those people integration cannot work. They say that the whole Brown community of Kleinskool feels threatened because Blacks are living amongst the Brown people and according to them their numbers are increasing steadily. The Brown people believe that eventually they will be totally crowded out if something is not done to stop the influx and to get the Blacks out of there. It seems to me there must be CP supporters in that community. They say that they are not racists, but they prefer living among their own people.

According to your policy, where is my homeland?

We can discuss that matter, but then the hon the Minister must not sit there shouting at me. [Interjections.] I am making my speech.

Tell me now where my homeland is. I want to know where!

The hon the Minister is sitting in it. [Interjections.]

That is equally racist. If hon members think that only so-called racist Afrikaners … [Interjections] … are always harping on differences, they are making a big mistake. President Sebe said the following:

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a question?

I think my time is rather limited. [Interjections.]

Harold Macmillan had to admit in 1960 that the Afrikaners had originated in Europe, the birthplace of nationalism, and had created here in Africa an own, new and free nation, the first African nationalism.

If this nation had thought only of itself, if it had only been an oppressor, it would have deserved to go the way of all tyrants and imperialists, but that is not a true representation. I associate myself with Van Wyk Louw when he says:

I am saying here today that it is wrong to talk about the people of South Africa as if the Afrikaners, the Whites, were the people of South Africa, or as if the ANC’s “People’s democracy” were the “people” of South Africa. This realisation is the opposite of any narrow, racist belief that disregards or wants to suppress or replace any other types of nationalism. What people do not always realise is that the Afrikaners’ struggle acquired its true humanitarian value only when all the other national groups were pushed forward on the road of their own national awareness and material progress. I maintain that because of the very fact that our own nationhood is valuable to us and because we had to justify our nationhood in the eyes of the world, we respect the multinational character of the population of South Africa. Note that I say multinational, and not a non-racial hotchpotch of 29 million individuals.

Then the development of seven independent national states—six self-governing national states—is not an accident. It is no deviation from the sound historical or right fundamental line. Then the existence of the Houses of Representatives and Delegates is not a failure to appreciate people, but rather respect for the existence and rights of communities. Then the future of these Houses is not to become extinct in a Black dominated South Africa, but rather to exist in full-fledged parliaments with even more powers than those in their present minority position in a tricameral system.

Mr Speaker, I do not want to react at once to what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly has just said, but in the course of my speech I hope to come to aspects of it, which I shall deal with.

I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation to several hon members who were responsible for kind references to me as a person and also in my capacity of State President. I could not help thinking, while I was listening to some of the paeans of praise, of an anecdote told to me by a very good old friend of mine who lived near Heidelberg. He was Mr Kootjie Uys of the well-known farm Skeiding. On his farm he had an excellent farm labourer, but that man was not always very kind to his wife. Then it so happened that that farm labourer died and Mr Kootjie Uys, who was a venerable elder, presided over the funeral. He delivered an oration for the excellent labourer, saying what a good man he had been and how well he had behaved. During the course of it his wife nudged her little son and whispered in his ear: “We must leave Kleinjan; we are at the wrong funeral”. The other day I almost thought we were dealing with the wrong State President’s Vote.

I must accept that if there were any grounds for these tributes—I accept them with deep appreciation—then there must also have been times when things could not have been as bad as people made them out to be at the time.

At the outset, when I express my gratitude to hon members, I also want to express thanks to two other bodies with whom I have been associated not only in recent years, but also for a considerable time. I am referring firstly to the Economic Advisory Council, whose hon members rendered unstinting service in this Chamber and made valuable contributions to enable the Government and all of us to make economic progress for South Africa.

A few days ago I mentioned the outstanding members of that Economic Advisory Council. Now I want to include all of those who are still serving members and thank them for the wonderful help they gave us. In addition I should like to express a word of sincere thanks to members of the President’s Council and their predecessors who for years produced valuable reports on which we could continue to build and which we could use in the development of our present constitutional position.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to members of the various councils, as well as to those who took the lead in those councils and are still doing so. After decades of parliamentary experience, since 1948, and ministerial responsibilities since 1961, I really do not want to take leave of it all with tears in my eyes today. The other day I almost felt that hon members were bidding me a nostalgic farewell. I merely want to say so long; we shall meet again on the road ahead. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and some of his hon colleagues tried from the word go, in the debate on my Vote—that is how I understood it—to play the NP and myself off against one another. It was obvious. However, it had no effect on me. [Interjections.] I helped to build the NP; I shall not help to destroy it. [Interjections.] A few differences of opinion between bodies of the NP and myself, as became recently apparent from press reports of decisions of the Federal Council and the caucus of the Party, are a constitutional aspect, and do nothing to change our common desire to put South Africa’s interests first. [Interjections.] In my opinion the NP remains an important instrument in promoting South Africa’s nationhood. The NP was established in the spirit of South Africa first. I hope it will continue in this way, and I shall help it to do so. My standpoint remains, however—I want to say this to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly—that I will not deal with my differences with the NP in such a way that they will lead to insurmountable differences.

South Africa’s highest interests require us to remain reasonable and patriotic towards one another. Do not therefore try to drive a wedge between us. It is obviously bad politics.

Various speakers referred to the question of national security, and more specifically to our security forces. Among them were people who spoke with great responsibility. I want to refer here to the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence, and I want to thank him sincerely for his references to me. In addition there were other observations about national security which did not entirely withstand the test of harsh reality. Here I want to refer briefly to the observations of the hon member for Randburg. During the course of his speech he said that one of the reasons he had left the NP was because of the way in which security had been handled. I should like to question that, because it was not my experience in talks with the hon member at that stage.

In his speech he termed it the Government’s inability to really co-ordinate reform and security. He alleged inter alia that security was being managed in isolation from the reform objectives. If that was really the hon member’s conviction, then he did not leave the NP out of principle, but because of a lack of appreciation of the real principles which applied.

Firstly I want to point out that security and reform are indeed being managed in close interaction with one another. This is the case not only in this country. One authoritative work after another by experts in the field of security administration in the world are there to be read, and if the hon member were to consult those authoritative works, he would see that security management and reform must in fact be dealt with jointly. It is the point of departure of this Government to do so.

It is in fact true that we have recently, as I remarked here the other day, discovered a new name in South Africa—securocrats. If one goes into it, what these people who refer derogatorily to securocrats are really doing is to make a concealed attack on the security forces of South Africa.

Secondly, it is an indisputable fact all over the world that reform is accompanied by uncertainty and instability. Hon members can take Ceylon as an example. A more recent example is Russia— the Soviet Union. This is an excellent example of our day, a country in which reform is accompanied by uncertainty and instability. In spite of all Mr Gorbachev professes, he frequently had to call upon his security services to intervene so as to maintain order in the Soviet Union.

Reform enhances the aspirations and expectations of those who feel they will benefit by it, but reform also increases the fears and insecurities of those who feel it will be to their disadvantage. These fears are fostered by those who abuse them in their propaganda.

There are also those who seize on a period of reform in order to fuel conflict so as to promote radical objectives. That is why reform inevitably leads to instability and conflict which is a threat to security and therefore also a serious threat to the process of reform. Let us remember that when we argue with one another for the sake of party-political gain in this honourable place.

Security is an absolute condition for reform. That is why security action is necessary during a period of reform, and why it is necessary that reform and security action be co-ordinated most closely. That was and is the standpoint of the Government, and the hon member for Randburg would have been completely out of touch with what was really going on in his party and in his Government circles if those were his impressions which he conveyed to us.

In addition the hon member for Sea Point, an experienced and respected member of our parliamentary institutions, came down rather strongly on the question of corruptive practices. He said there was a spirit of corruption in certain circles.

I want to tell the hon member that when I took office in 1978 my point of departure was one of clean administration. I do want to rely on the fact that as a Minister, I always kept to this.

My standpoint on corruption is well known. It must be eradicated. In fact, it was on my initiative that the Advocate-General Act came into being in 1979. The hon member will remember that. I specifically wanted to establish an instrument which could help Parliament to ensure that corrupt practices did not dominate in our country.

As the State President, it has always been my standpoint that I would not hesitate to appoint a commission of enquiry if prima facie proof for the necessity thereof was submitted to me. Where necessary, I also did this regularly. I therefore appointed commissions of enquiry when this was justified by circumstances, such as those under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Van den Heever, Mr Justice James and Mr Justice Harms.

I therefore find it strange that something I said during a Press interview caused the hon member to react, because during the interview I said:

I was not referring to the commissions.

I want to say here this afternoon that we in this country will have to take action against corruption. We in this country will have to take action against irregularities, but we must not make such a fuss in the media or wherever that we make it impossible for decent and honourable people to take part in public life. [Interjections.]

People and institutions use commission proceedings for their own malicious purposes. In this way people are found guilty and condemned in public, even before the commission has had an opportunity to consider its evidence and to reach a verdict.

The Commissions Act provides that commissions appointed in terms of the Act are entitled to the same protection as courts of law. Their proceedings may not be pre-empted, because this may impede their prestige and activities. I endorse this approach. In the interview I therefore did not attack the activities of commissions, but specifically emphasised the fact that their activities should be protected. That will remain my standpoint for as long as I am able to exert any influence in public life.

As in the past, the search for constitutional solutions to our problems came under the searchlight often in this debate. We have also just listened to the hon member for Waterberg, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.

Various hon members have referred to this, including the hon Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. I think the hon member Dr Zach de Beer also referred to it, and the hon members for Southern Cape, Brakpan and Stellenbosch made it the subject of their speeches.

Everyone in this Parliament surely agrees that the Westminster system of government does not provide the Republic with an answer in the constitutional sphere; in fact, we received a joint declaration from various political parties before converting to the new dispensation, in which they accepted the principle that the Westminster system was not acceptable in South Africa. For this reason we cannot attempt to move back to that system, as reflected in some other speeches.

In our search for solutions many studies in this regard have already been made by President’s Council committees, experts who have given evidence, and select committees. Studies have also been done in European countries in particular, where a different system to the Westminster formula is followed.

At the end of last year I ordered an expert investigation, comprising our best experts in this field, into the constitutional position in Switzerland and Belgium in order to see whether we could learn any lessons from their experiences. Both countries have systems other than the Westminster system. It has always been my standpoint that our unique circumstances would also demand unique solutions of us. This does not mean, however, that we cannot learn from the experience of others.

Thus, for example, the following opinion was expressed with regard to the experience and practical situation in Switzerland, and I shall quote a few sections from the report. I should be pleased to provide copies of the document to those hon members who are interested. This is the result of very thorough study and discussions with some of the most prominent constitutional experts of Belgium and Switzerland.

I quote:

We can see from this that we may glean quite a number of lessons from the experience of countries that have been grappling with this sort of problem for centuries. The report continues as follows:

However, proof that the purely geographic, federal form of government does not always afford a complete solution if geographic separation is not possible or meaningful is encountered even in Switzerland. When the new canton Jura was established in 1987, the boundaries were delineated in such a way that a small separate enclave remained part of Berne because French Protestants living there did not want to be a minority in Catholic Jura. Even after the separation there are still problems, because a quarter of the population of Jura were opposed to the separation, and in the segment of the traditional Jura region which remained part of Bern, one third of the inhabitants are in favour of being included in Jura.

Although South Africa consists of geographic units which can form the building blocks of a federation, and although in principle there are no objections to a federation, and the possibility cannot be excluded that South Africa will still develop into a federation, or that we can deliberately move in that direction, it is an oversimplification to say that a federation as such can be the key to the solving of the constitutional problems of South Africa.

The following are some of the reasons. There are more undemocratic federations than democratic federations in the world. A federal form of government as such does not afford any solutions as to how the federal organs in a heterogenous state must be constituted in order to eliminate group domination. The federal form of government as such affords no solution as to how the organs in federal states with heterogenous populations must be constituted to eliminate group domination. I shall quote further from the report:

The following is also important, and I am again quoting from the report:

With regard to this matter I want to conclude by also referring to aspects of this in Belgium which South Africa would do well to study and implement in its search for happiness.

In October of last year I said the following in a speech to the Swiss-South African Friendship Association in Zurich:

In the past it was taken amiss of me when I referred to minority rights in Parliament. Even Afrikaans-speaking or pro-Afrikaans political parties took it amiss of me. However, I said the following in Switzerland:

The guaranteeing and the protection of human rights in the social, economic and political spheres is a practical matter. There are innumerable theories and philosophies in connection with this subject, but essentially it means to ensure a better life for everyone.

Mr Speaker, I want to discuss another aspect which was raised here by hon members. As far as I can remember, the hon member for Sea Point raised it, and the hon member Dr De Beer also referred to it. Furthermore, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and the hon member for Yeoville also raised the issue of the State Presidency. In the joint sitting on 6 April I touched on aspects of this subject. In view of the questions put to me here, I nevertheless deem it necessary to say a few words about this. In this connection I refer hon members to a speech I made in the House of Assembly on 21 April 1988. It is not my fault that my speech did not receive the necessary attention at that stage. It was when my Vote was being dealt with. I refer hon members to Hansard, 21 April, cols 6819 and 6820. I want to ask hon members to take the trouble to re-read that important section of my speech. They may have time to do so during their preparations for the forthcoming elections. I said:

I tried. In more than one respect I failed because the circumstances of the position did not allow me to succeed! There was no lack of willingness on my part.

I went on to say:

That is what I advocated last year. Call it a Prime Minister or call it a Vice State President, but to unite all these obligations of macropolicy in one person and not give him assistance in continuing the ordinary administration of the country is to expect too much from any person, even if he is a genius, which I certainly was not.

On one occasion I said that the State President himself should be able to preside, but normally he ought to be able to preside over a general meeting of the leaders of the respective communities in order to deliberate on policy. The question will be asked how this State President is going to be elected. I think the present electoral college, with a minor change, can make provision for that. I also proceeded to give an example. I wanted to lay this matter open to discussion and give hon members an opportunity to debate the pros and cons. After all, we are all seeking the truth and seeking solutions, are we not?

I said I was in favour of recognised Black leaders participating in that electoral college. The State President then becomes their State President too. Moreover, it is my standpoint that until a satisfactory basis is found on which that election must take place, the existing arrangements will have to remain in order to preserve order.

In the process attention can also be given to the composition of the executive authority, inter alia in order to afford the State President more mobility in regard to appointing people from outside Parliament to the executive authority. For example people, including those from other population groups, could be brought in to help the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. As far as I know there is legislation before Parliament, and it was submitted on my initiative. So much for the passages I wanted to quote.

Hon members will recall that the Cabinet, under my direction, began to prepare legislation in this connection. The Constitution, which was accepted by all of us, and which was accepted by the country by way of a referendum, nevertheless imposes certain duties on the State President. For example, in Part 5 of the Constitution, from section 19 to section 24, specific obligations are imposed on the State President of South Africa. Responsibilities and obligations cannot be separated.

I had this in mind when I requested on 18 March that the Federal Council of the NP, the caucus and I should meet to discuss these problems with one another. No one need take advantage of this. I am completely prepared to keep on talking to my party compatriots of the past and of today, and to search in future for the truth for this country. That is what is of decisive importance. That is all I want to say about the question of the State President.

I maintain that we must, in the interests of greater national unity, in the interests of greater co-operation, in the interests of greater mutual understanding, search together for solutions. But then we must—in the light, or in the darkness, of the great dangers which threaten this country from time to time—stop bickering and calling one another names.

This brings me to the final matter on which I want to say a few words, and which was raised here. Several hon members referred in this debate as well to the position of Mr Nelson Mandela. These included the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives and the hon members for Houghton and Sea Point.

†It is for a considerable time that the possible release of Mr Nelson Mandela has been raised with me and in the Press. It has also been raised with me by leaders elsewhere in Africa and Europe, and by well-meaning people who are interested in South Africa and its future. I have had many a discussion on this matter and due to various considerations the Government is treating the question of his release with the utmost care. Among these considerations are Mr Mandela’s age and his long term of imprisonment, the emotional and international dimensions of the matter, the interest of the community and the security in the country.

It was against this background that on 31 January 1985 I said the following in Parliament: (Hansard: House of Assembly, 31 January, col 310):

I repeat that. I went on to say:

During my travels in Africa I had discussions with some prominent leaders in Africa, and when I raised this point with them during the discussion, one even went so far as to say:“Then arrest him.”

However, I told him immediately that that was no solution. This is as far as I am quoting what I said on a previous occasion.

In his reply to my statement, the then Leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slahbert, welcomed my attitude as an “important initiative in detente politics” and a genuine attempt to break what he called “the cycle of violence”.

However, on 13 February 1985 Mr Mandela rejected my offer out of hand. Despite this rejection I responded the following day by saying:

I can quote very important people in this regard who agree with me that violence and the breaking of the peace by violence is unacceptable to South Africa. I went on to say:

At the Natal congress of the NP in August 1988 I raised the matter of Mr Mandela’s illness and the fact that he was being cared for by the best medical experts in one of the best hospitals in the world.

I then posed the question: Am I prepared to release him? Personally, I do not think at his age and in his condition it would be wise for him to choose to go back to jail. I hope he will make it possible for me to act in a humane way and in such a way that we can have peace in South Africa instead of violence.

Since Mr Mandela’s return from hospital the circumstances of his imprisonment have been alleviated considerably. He now resides in suitable, comfortable and secure living accommodation where he is able to receive members of his family more freely and on a continual basis.

Although the circumstances of Mr Mandela’s imprisonment have changed the existing criteria for his release still apply. Since 1987 a release advisory board which was instituted in terms of the Prisons Act of 1959 also functions with regard to security prisoners such as Mr Mandela. The board, under the chairmanship of a judge, advises the Government on the possible release of a prisoner with regard to factors such as the nature of and motive for the crime, the duration of the sentence, the aims of the trial court with the imposition of the punishment, the reaction of the prisoner to the prison sentence and the interests of the community as well as the possibility that the prisoner would resort to crime after his release. It is against this background that Mr Mandela’s position is still receiving the attention of the Government.

*It ought to be clear to everyone, however, that it would be futile if his release were to lead to re-arrest, and even intensified conflict. I hope he understands this very thoroughly, and I have reason to believe that it is clear to him. No head of government who is responsible for preserving order, can lend himself in South Africa to processes which are geared to promoting group domination, as well as the overthrow of democratic principles and the destruction of private initiative and free enterprise. For these reasons the case of Mr Mandela is being dealt with with circumspection. I gave this undertaking to honourable leaders elsewhere in the world. I gave this undertaking to hon African leaders, and I adhere to it. However, he himself has a part to play in this process. If he is prepared to make a contribution to the peaceful settlement of South Africa’s future, I shall welcome that personally. In such a case the Government will react open-heartedly. South Africa’s problems can be resolved if all South Africans have the will to tackle them jointly.

On the other hand we must warn that interference from outside by outside bodies can lead to misunderstanding and confusion. From Mr Mandela’s reaction to a letter which he allegedly wrote last week to Mrs Thatcher I infer that he, too, is not in favour of manipulation from outside—not that I am implying that she is guilty of that. I find his actions in connection with that letter encouraging, and I shall leave it at that.

Finally, hon members are on the eve of a general election and for the first time it will not be my privilege to contest a constituency. Diagonally opposite me here I see hon members who will quite probably not share in that privilege either.

Nevertheless I want to tell hon members, from the experience I inevitably gained and which had to become part of my life, that no one can blame them for trying to win a constituency. No one can blame them for stating their party’s case to the public according to their convictions. Nevertheless I want to ask South Africa to do so in such a way that we will meet afterwards on the way to greater and better circumstances for all of us and our children.

Mr Speaker, today is indeed a historical day at this Joint Meeting of Parliament and it is my privilege as an English-speaking South African of the governing party to pay tribute to our former leader of the NP and one of South Africa’s greatest sons, the hon the State President.

It is this statesman whose love for his country and whose dreams of a new South Africa united in its richness, the richness of the diversity of its people, who has, as the decade of the eighties draws to a close, been the architect and the builder who has laid the foundations firmly, resolutely, with courage and conviction of a vision far beyond the years of any of his illustrious predecessors and has laid the solid foundations from which political solutions will be achieved in a spirit of broad national unity, dignity and patriotism for all of our people in these difficult times.

The eighties have seen dramatic changes under the leadership of the hon the State President. There are two such changes I would like to dwell on. The first is that we are today taking part in a joint meeting of the tricameral Parliament in this Chamber. This is one of the finest testimonials which has rewritten the history of our country. A constitutional milestone was achieved when in 1983 the Constitution was accepted and put into practice. 1984 was the year when a new and far-reaching constitutional dispensation became a reality, as is witnessed today with the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates representing our Coloured and our Indian communities.

A new dimension had been added to the parliamentary scene of South Africa. This tricameral Parliament is a living proof of the hon the State President’s vision, and anyone with political acumen will acknowledge that it is here that constructive and realistic debates can take place. It is here that peaceful solutions will be found and it is here that far-reaching decisions, affecting the lives of all of our people, will be sealed in a final solution for a totally changed South Africa for all moderate South Africans as we enter the era of the nineties under the leadership of the hon Mr F W de Klerk.

The hon the State President knew that his policy of reform could perhaps alienate certain sections of the Afrikaner community. He knew he would bear a heavy price tag. He knew that a large number of his supporters might possibly leave the NP, yet with great determination he set out to achieve his vision of putting South Africa first. The hon the State President was the only leader in the Western world who had the courage to risk dividing his own support and put his country, South Africa, first. In the 1987 general election moderate English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans took one another’s hands in a way that South Africa had never experienced before, resulting in the NP’s victorious success of being returned to power, and this time with 13 English-speaking members of Parliament.

South Africans had made their choice. As voters they realised that the NP is not a party of exclusivity, that it believes in co-operation with all the population groups of South Africa. For the first time people realised and accepted that the NP provides a home for a wider spectrum of voters who were previously seriously divided in their political views.

Despite social and cultural differences there is today a political unity amongst all South Africans of different origins; Afrikaners, English-speakers, Jews like myself, Germans, Portuguese, Italians, Greeks and many others have identified themselves politically with the NP under the leadership of the hon the State President. This has also been one of his greatest triumphs.

We are about to enter an election which could be the most critical in our country’s history. To the left we have a new political alignment. With the resurrection of old ones and accusations, countercharges are already prevalent in the DP. Although marriages of convenience are largely a thing of the past, the marriage between the hon members in this House and that over-blushing bride waiting outside, do indeed make three strange bedfellows—a ménage à trois. This honeymoon can never result in a perfect marriage, neither will it produce a larger family of hon members to the House of Assembly. I already sense a feeling of impotency in such a marriage.

Stability in a deeply divided society like our own is a critical political problem. Many of us see society as a cohesive, integrated unit and we tend not to be puzzled by the stable operation of that society. What we must address is not the persistence of that socio-political system, but conflict between elements within it, sustained efforts to alter its internal dynamics and the various manifestations of disorder which always accompany conflict and attempts to change.

Our Government’s firm belief is that our country cannot afford to allow one group to dominate another. Sincere and genuine attempts to involve other groups in Government and its administration since 1980 are evidence of this fact. I have said repeatedly that change and the pace of change is never fast enough, but I put it to hon members that our future is a commodity that demands caution and careful treatment, not impulsive, headstrong and even irreversible change that we might regret.

A prerequisite for accommodation politics is a disavowal of violence by all the players in the political game. Unless violence is subdued, no meaningful negotiations can take place. It is rank naivete to suppose that the ANC will be prepared to negotiate a compromise to our vexing problems.

A majoritarian centralised state of the socialist model …

Talk to them and hear what they say!

Listen to what I am saying and then finish! A majoritarian centralised state of the socialist model under their control is clearly what they have in mind. Those who advocate the inclusion of the ANC in our political process on their terms, should understand this ambiguous fact. [Interjections.] The ANC policy represents a control approach to our divided society. In such circumstances one can fully expect an ANC government not to accommodate the different groups, but through coercion to control them, as did Mr Mugabe.

Our country is on a path towards accommodation where no one group will dominate another. Perhaps our very success so far has motivated the frantic attempts by our detractors to try to destroy what we hold so dear and earnestly want to create. As in other divided societies one must learn to accept that a solution can only be achieved by co-operation and negotiation and not by violence.

In political terms South Africa stands today on the threshold of an exciting road to a new South Africa. Our country is, however, not unfamiliar with national crises. One recalls the Boer War, the labour upheavals of the 1920s and the declaration of war on Germany, to mention but a few.

One example, however, stands out as a triumph of accommodation over disunity, namely the conference which established the Union of South Africa after an ugly, vindictive civil war.

Let us pray that in our case in the 1990s accommodation will precede wholesale violence, for any other option is unthinkable.

Mr Speaker, I also wish to record my feeling of satisfaction here this afternoon at the fact that we have the hon the State President in our midst and that he is in good health and participating in this debate. I was also pleased to hear certain statements by the last hon speaker about a new dimension in a new South Africa.

It must, however, also be borne in mind that quite often we begin to theorize, but the age of theory should be behind us and philosophies should be put into action. Without them being put into action we will not be able to see the South Africa which we would like to see.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly spoke earlier of the protection and preservation of each man’s culture. That has to go without saying. No person or authority has the right to interfere with the cultural and religious aspects of any individual, whatever one’s political ideals might be.

I also wish to state that we should not be caught in the crossfire between two superpowers. South Africa has proved beyond any doubt that it is a country which can be regarded as a power base and one which is put to the test.

During the past few years there has been proof beyond any doubt that we have the capability, the tolerance, the patience, and the foresight; and equally, we can be regarded as the last generation of moderates to pursue the path of negotiation.

I wish to make a very special appeal here, having heard the hon the State President speak about the various aspects of this question and more so about the lesser developed people and the progress we have made during the past 10 years. There is nothing more important in any society than to consider the importance and the development of the underdeveloped.

In this regard there are certain aspects I personally wish to make an appeal about to the hon the State President through you, Mr Speaker, because if there is anyone able to write a new chapter in the history of South Africa, it is the hon the State President. He with his colleagues took the initiative, and it is our appeal that he continues the task that he has undertaken, namely to write a new chapter and a new constitution for South Africa, and to prepare this country for the post-apartheid era.

On that basis I wish to appeal to the hon the State President this afternoon to look immediately at the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the total freedom of agriculture, the repeal of the Group Areas Act, and wide-ranging development aid for the underdeveloped communities of this country.

Looking at the area of the underdeveloped, there is one aspect I wish to lay emphasis on this afternoon, and that is the informal settlement of our underprivileged community. Throughout the country we are witnessing the development of the informal sector. The informal sector must be given incentives and guidance, so that they will be able to develop themselves in an orderly manner.

What we need in this country is the involvement of the youth and the aged; in fact, the involvement of all sectors in order that they may develop, and in so doing provide for themselves the security that they are in search of.

Therefore, to come back to reform in South Africa, I want to say that one of the pillars of reform in any country is the quality of life. If the criterion is the quality of life, we must understand that we have the White community and the non-White community. I agree with the last speaker that we are making history here in participating in a debate in a joint meeting, but at the same time we must be able to evaluate and analyse the various difficulties of the various communities. Alongside this, we must apply our minds collectively to develop the underdeveloped.

I want to say to the hon the State President that he has made history in taking the initiative. He now has an excellent opportunity to conclude his historic period by repealing the rest of the objectionable and discriminatory pieces of legislation that remain before us. He can be assured that he has negotiators and well-intentioned leaders within the non-White community in South Africa. I am quite certain that with the initiative … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, we are now approaching the end of this very important debate— the debate in which, traditionally the Government informs Parliament and the country of its guidelines for South Africa’s future and of its answers to the country’s problems.

I believe that I acted within my right earlier when I took the opportunity to put certain pertinent questions to the Government. The question dealt with its intentions with regard to the franchise policy for the future, questions of citizenship, the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Population Registration Act, etc. I appreciate the fact that the hon the State President referred to my speech this afternoon, but the fact remains that I received an answer to only one of these questions, and that was by way of a slightly indistinct interjection from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

As I understood him, he assured us that partition was no longer being regarded as a solution to our constitutional problem. That is the answer which I expected—in fact, it is the correct answer—and it simply means that all South Africans, or at least the vast majority of South Africans from all backgrounds are destined to remain inhabitants of one and the same country. Inhabitants, yes; then comes the question—I am not apologizing for repeating it—as to whether full citizenship is going to be granted to each inhabitant of our country. Yes, or no? If not, on what grounds will citizenship be withheld from certain people? If so, what is the NP’s idea of citizenship? Will every citizen be given an equal franchise or not? That is the question which remains to be answered.

That, then, regarding the only question to which I received any answer whatsoever. With regard to the rest of my questions, I was greeted with a deadly silence. The NP is either unwilling or unable to say what it wants to do in the future with regard to constitutional development.

In so far as I heard the discussion with regard to this Vote, and I was reasonably attentive, there was only one speaker on the Government’s side who in any way made a serious attempt to speak about policy, namely the hon member for Stellenbosch. I have his Hansard here. He referred to the well-known Upington speech which the hon the State President made 10 years ago. The hon member for Stellenbosch said the following with reference to the hon the State President:

Of course, we know this argument. It is the usual NP answer when they are asked how they explain the fact that the White minority governs and dominates the majority in South Africa.

According to this argument, there is no such thing as a majority in our country—only a White minority—a Xhosa minority, a Zulu minority, an Indian minority etc. It is this reasoning which tempted Dr Ntatho Motlana to remark: “Ethnicity is what teaches you that an Afrikaner and a Greek are part of the same nation, but a Zulu and Xhosa are not.”

†This whole argument about a multiplicity of minorities is, of course, quite fraudulent. One can play with words and divide people in any way one wishes. One can divide the 27 million people of South Africa into 27 million minorities, if one takes the trouble to do so. At best it is an academic process and at worst it is downright racist. As used here, it is usually racist. If one is a democrat—in the world-wide sense of the word or in the special South African sense—one grants individual rights on an equal basis to everyone, one protects people’s cultures and one then gets on with developing the country. It does not matter who comes from what group; we are all South Africans. Only if one is sick with racism is it necessary to chop our people up into minorities.

However, let me return to the hon member for Stellenbosch. Having delivered a speech about his precious minorities, he then gets around to the DP. He refers in the most misleading way to something that my colleague Prof Terreblanche wrote, ripping a sentence altogether out of its context, and then he eventually comes to the standard NP “Swart Gevaar” sloganeering which precedes every election. He says: “Ons sal dit by herhaling in duidelike terme uitspel dat die DP se beleid ’n ongebreidelde Swart meerderheids-regering, met al die gevolge daarvan, vir ons almal tot gevolg sal he.” [Interjections.]

Now suddenly this is not a nation of minorities. Now there is a “ongebreidelde Swart meerderheid”. We have all struck this, over and over down the years. Hon members should just compare the two statements in the fairly brief speech that the hon member gave. All the population groups in South Africa—and he specifies all the groups other than the Whites— are minorities, and then suddenly we have an “unbridled Black majority”. It simply depends on one’s propaganda purposes, does it not? If one wants to offer some justification for one’s own minority domination, then one says: “Ag, but South Africa only consists of minorities.” Why that should justify one particular minority dominating all the others escapes me. That is what one says when one seeks to defend the minority domination which is the fact of life that the NP has visited upon South Africa.

However, when one wants to make propaganda against an opponent who has democratic ideas then suddenly the country does not consist exist of little minorities—it consists largely of an “ongebreidelde Swart meerderheid”. That is the term that was used and that is the ludicrous contradiction in the logic which the Government tries to advance to justify its own position. Not only do the Nationalists in this House refuse to answer fundamentally important questions about their own policy, they also shamelessly use totally contradictory answers as their propaganda purposes require.

We have simply seen once again in this debate what we have known for a long time. The NP has not got a policy. It has no vision of a future South Africa. They cannot go back to the partition policy because it has already failed, and they do not have the courage to look at the only defensible, justifiable alternative, which is of course the policy of the DP.

Actually there is not any solid ground that one can find to stand on between partition on the one hand and democracy on the other. Anything else one does is going to be makeshift, catch-as-catch-can, haphazard patchwork which is exactly what we do see in this country today. We have here a party and a Government with no principles, no policy, no sense of direction. They are simply treading water, keeping themselves afloat, enjoying their power and the privileges it brings. They are dragging the people deeper and deeper into poverty. They are running the country in terms of a state of emergency which denies all accepted standards of human rights. They and their policies have estranged us from a world where we should be welcome. They have no aim but to retain their power and their perquisites.

And we? We offer instead to South Africa the vision of a free, democratic nation based on justice. I can say it as simply as that—a free, democratic nation based on justice. We offer a country where every person’s task is to live his or her own life, to produce, to consume, to progress, and to build an ever greater, more open society. All it takes is the courage to stop thinking in racist terms, and to think instead in democratic ones.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking after the hon member Dr De Beer. Unfortunately I cannot agree with him when he simplifies the NP policy to such an extent that he completely ignores and disregards principles expressed by the hon the State President. For example, on 30 September 1985 the hon the State President said the following:

That is still true and the debate continues.

†The hon member, however, represents a party which abounds with paradoxes. He claims the party is non-racial, but all the members are White. [Interjections ] He claims it is South African, but they refuse to display the national flag. [Interjections.] An unconvincing argument was put forward by Dr Denis Worrall the very day after the party was founded. The parliamentary executive of the party reeks of a PFP take-over. There is no token Afrikaner, there is no token Black and. in fact, the hon member for Claremont has been blackballed from this elite club. I wish him well with the rest of his political career.

The hon the State President has been praised as a reformer today, but during his tenure of this high office in this country he has used the opportunity it afforded him to promote the Republic of South Africa. He launched various campaigns. I am referring to the promotion of tourism, the campaign encouraging people to buy South African products, the promotion of the national flag, the preamble to the Constitution and, when one considers the Flora ’88 campaign, the prominent part he played in nature conservation. One also recalls his recent visits to the hawkers to stimulate small business development.

In March 1988 he hosted a conference on the television, film and video industry. The importance of marketing South Africa overseas and internationally was recognised by various leaders in the field at that occasion.

*Mr Boet Troskie said:

†At this conference it was recognised that the film industry in Southern Africa is not yet capable of the professionalism required at all levels. Although we are familiar with the audience, the industry and the markets, we realise the worth of exporting our culture. Although we are aware of the quality of the film industry and the fact that it would provide many job opportunities and develop skills which could be used in other sectors of the economy, questions of affordability predominate.

This is an expensive enterprise. The risks are high and the cost factors immense but the importance of the media in the twentieth century cannot be over-emphasised. The world is brought into our homes, beamed across continents by the TV channels of the world and shown in the cinemas. The American way of life becomes part of the everyday life of Southern Africa because this is what we see. However, another meaningful question can be asked, namely: What do they see of South Africa? When we think of films like Shaka Zulu, You Must be Joking, The Gods Must be Crazy and Fiela’s Child, it is important to realise that the current changing society is interesting, that reform is real and that it will command attention. It is prudent to plan strategically; to make the world our market; to go global.

In conclusion, the hon the State President has used the opportunity that his high office afforded him to open up South African politics, to appreciate and to stimulate the rich diversity of our country, and to unleash the creativity of its people. For this we honour him.

Mr Speaker, having listened to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, I can only say with Thomas Jefferson:

Having listened to hon members of the NP during this particular debate and to certain replies and reflections, one is almost—fortunately it is almost—in despair. One is almost inclined to call out with the psalmist: “Lord, how long?”

*Lord, how long?

†Surely nationhood in the South African sense demands a togetherness of all its people—not peoples, but all its people. I would like to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, who mentioned the effects of British imperialism and what these people had done to them, why they then do to us what he says the British did to them.

You misunderstood his speech!

Do they expect us to respond in the same way in order to live as individuals and as South Africans? I would like to ask him what characteristics are necessary to be an Afrikaner.

I believe that South Africa, as the hon the State President has said, demands a reasonableness but I also believe that that reasonableness demands our understanding. More than that, it demands a willingness to understand. There are people who are just too blind to the realities of the South African situation and who are prepared to perpetuate a system which is party policy and which has made us the polecat of the international situation.

I believe that other countries have a right to look at their own situations and I do not question the legitimacy of those particular countries. However, in the South African context I must say that the White group is a racist group and cannot be culturally defined. I would like to understand what is meant by group identity— the diversity of people—because again in the South African circumstance they have made artificial people of me and of many others—people who do not exist.

It is nice to hear people speak broadly about the community that is and ought to be. The definition of the communis means that we ought to be one within the South African context and with each other. What we need at a time like this is a striving after, and belief in, a vision of a South Africa where we will see each other as part of a South African community and not as part of a racially classified people.

I must correct one impression that was created here this afternoon— the one that all South Africans had accepted the new Constitution. This is not so. The LP has stated emphatically that we do not accept the Constitution, but that we will use our participation as a means towards an end. We say again that it was not all South Africans because the majority of South Africans were not consulted in the process.

I regard the sentiments of the Afrikaner and the NP with respect. However, I also say that the NP must never forget that one of the first things they did when they took over power in this country, was to release Robey Leibbrandt, a convicted terrorist. They must never forget that.

*Undoubtedly one of the most important inquiries yet, which has enjoyed very little prominence so far, and which, as far as the LP is concerned, lays the foundation for a new South Africa, are the terms of reference of the South African Law Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice P J Olivier.

What is more important, is that this commission undertook the inquiry into a human rights campaign for South Africa on the instructions of the hon the Minister of Justice, Mr Kobie Coetsee. On behalf of my party I want to compliment the hon the Minister on the appointment of such a commission. No doubt it was a daring thing to do.

The LP supports the provisional report of this commission and regards it as essential in the laying down of a foundation for our country’s future. The findings must surely be regarded as one of the strongest rays of light of 1989. Although the commission’s report is far from complete, I want to express the confidence, on behalf of the LP, that the Government will not place this report on a shelf to gather dust later this year.

One aspect of the report which deserves to be mentioned, is the proposal of the commission that a charter of human rights for South Africa be implemented in various phases, namely an acceptance in principle by Parliament, the adaptation of existing legislation in order to eradicate discrimination entirely, an educational process, the achievement of consensus with regard to a future constitution, the finalising of a charter of human rights and the ultimate legitimising of a new constitution through the holding of an open referendum for all South Africans and all races.

This foundation which the commission has laid so far, can form the basis of the Great Indaba. The hon the State President or the hon the leader of the NP can now place South Africa on the correct course through these findings. For that reason I am appealing to the Government to support the Law Commission in all earnestness in their inquiry.

I also want to ask that a further commission be appointed under the guidance of Mr Justice Oliver to look at an alternative model for a constitution. I do not believe that this ought to be the prerogative of the President’s Council. Hon members themselves know that the President’s Council does not reflect the sum total of ideas in South Africa and that it will undoubtedly be biased.

†We in die Labour Party state clearly that the future of South Africa will be determined by the majority of South Africans and not only by the NP or the CP. It is not their right alone. It is not their prerogative. I say again this afternoon that the spirit of liberation will not be extinguished for the majority of South Africans. I believe that the future lies in our togetherness. It must be one nation. One nation must be our call, for we and the majority of South Africans at this particular juncture believe that our future lies in a non-racial geographic federation of states in which White fears can be accommodated, but which will certainly give recognition to the aspirations of Black people.

May I end this afternoon by mentioning that the late head of the Egyptian state, Anwar Sadat, had occasion to say, and I quote: “Let there be no more despair.” I hope this will be our point of departure. Let there be no more despair. Let there be no loss of faith. Let there be no more mothers weeping for their sons. Let us go on to where they shall beat their swords into ploughshears. This is my vision for the new South Africa.

Mr Speaker, it is naturally a special privilege for me to take part at this late hour this afternoon in this debate on the Vote of the hon the State President. I am privileged in another respect, and that is that it seldom happens that one has an opportunity to have the final say in the discussion of the hon the State President’s Vote. If I read the papers correctly, I am the last man to speak here this afternoon.

It was very interesting to listen to the speeches that were heard here this afternoon. I should like to refer to the reply made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly to a question which the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives put to him regarding where the hon the Minister’s homeland was. After some hesitation, his reply to the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing in the House of Representatives was as follows: You are sitting in your homeland!

I want to tell hon members this afternoon that South Africa should take cognisance of this statement by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, because what does it mean? It means just one thing, and that is that if this hon leader were to come under pressure, he would give South Africa away overnight without consulting his people about it.

I wish to refer to a second aspect which was not raised here, but which I was very amused to see in the newspaper last weekend with regard to the application by the hon member for Claremont for membership of the new DP. In addition to that hon member, two hon members of the House of Representatives also applied for membership of the DP. This party then made the very clever move of rejecting the hon member for Claremont’s membership and motivating this by saying that they were not accepting any more applications for membership from members of Parliament, because they would like to cooperate with the LP, and for that reason they did not approve the applications from the hon members of the House of Representatives either.

In all fairness, I want to put it like this: If that is how they wish to move forward into the future in order to build the South Africa which they visualise, I am afraid that they are going to become bogged down with the visions which they formulated in the election in 1987 and which nothing came of, until the dissolution of that party is also on the cards.

The hon leader of the LP and Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives said here this afternoon that he and his party did not accept the Constitution in terms of which we had gathered here this afternoon. It is the prerogative of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his people not to accept the Constitution, but then we must also be fair in that process. By this I mean that we must grant recognition to what this Constitution has achieved in South Africa.

In other words, the hon leader of the LP and the hon members of his party are sitting in the Parliament of South Africa this afternoon, where they can make their contributions and from where, together with the rest of us sitting here, they can move forward and map out a new constitution for South Africa. [Interjections.] The point is that one does not start at the end of the road; one starts at the beginning of the road, and I think we have already made a great deal of progress. [Interjections.]

The second matter I wish to raise, is that it is true that the members of the LP have achieved a great deal for their people since they have been in Parliament. We are grateful for that, and one ought not to find this a stumbling block; actually it ought to be a great privilege for one.

We are on the eve of an election, as has frequently been said in this debate during the past few days. When we approach the election, the NP will naturally become the target for attacks from all sides in this election from the ranks of the political parties in all the Houses. When we approach an election, however, we do so on the basis of two points of departure. In the first instance one approaches an election on the basis of what one has achieved and accomplished during the past number of years, on the basis of which one asks the voters to evaluate one. Secondly, we are also going to the voters in order to tell them that this is the future we visualise for South Africa.

If we look at what has been accomplished in South Africa, specifically under the leadership of the hon the State President, I wish to assert this afternoon that no political leader, of any political party whatsoever, has succeeded, since the founding of the Union in 1910, in doing more within a period of 10 years to bring about such a landslide in the political thinking of its own people and of the country, than the hon the State President.

Secondly, the hon the State President has succeeded in doing this whilst maintaining order and stability in South Africa. Without that order and stability no real reform would have been possible in South Africa. We should like to thank him for that because the foundations have been laid upon which we can continue to build and upon which the NP can give expression to its philosophy of joint government and equal opportunities for all.

The difference, however, is that the hon members of the DP make a great song and dance about the just South Africa which they wish to create. I want to venture to predict this afternoon that neither the hon members of the DP nor the hon members of the LP, with their policy of a geographic federation, will be able to succeed in ignoring the basic lines which have been drawn by the NP in South Africa.

They will simply have to recognise ethnicity as a reality in South Africa. The day they do that, they will not have moved away from the concept of the NP, namely that of the recognition of the rights of minority groups in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I wish to state unequivocally this afternoon that hon members may move in whatever direction they choose, but in the development of their future policies, they will not be able to ignore the foundations that have been laid in this country by the NP under the leadership of the hon the State President.

I now wish to refer to a second aspect. The hon the State President raised the issue of co-operation between the private sector and the public sector. The fact that the State has embarked on a course of making itself more and more independent of participation in economic development and the exercise of control in the economic sphere, is one of the most important aspects of reform that we have witnessed in South Africa during the past few years. I want to thank the hon the State President for this, because in this regard opportunities are being created for all South Africans to enter the market without competition from the State and to create job opportunities, develop expertise and ensure that South Africa’s economy is established on a very broad base.

Thirdly the hon the State President has succeeded in giving South Africa a standing in the world which it did not have ten years ago. We shall not forget the overseas trips that the hon the State President made in order to state South Africa’s case, and those discussions which he held in the interests of South Africa. We shall not forget how he has elevated this country, which was a doomed country, to the position it occupies today—on the pedestal of a regional power in Southern Africa. I thank him very much for his unflagging zeal in this regard.

I wish to conclude by saying thank you very much to the hon the State President for what I personally regard as his greatest contribution to the development of politics in South Africa, namely the fact that at the cost of the unity of his own political party, sometimes accompanied by bitter accusations and bitter opposition to him personally, he has never hesitated to lead the people of South Africa away from their pettiness and selfishness to a greater future. I think this is where he has made the greatest contribution, because on this basis we shall be able to build a future South Africa in which everyone may be involved in the Government of the country, but we shall also be able to build it in such a way that stability and order are maintained in South Africa.

Order! Since this is probably the last time the hon the State President will be attending to the discussion of this Vote in Parliament, I should like to assure him that it has been a privilege for me to act as Speaker during the discussion of his Vote. I should like to thank him for his conduct towards the Chair.

Mr Speaker, allow me to react to some of the remarks made about the Coloureds by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.

I would like to make it very, very clear that the LP’s viewpoint and policy are not based on a racial South Africa. We stand for a free South Africa, free from the chains of the racial nationalism which has bedevilled relationships in this country. We want to break the chains of racialism and not promote them. The LP does not support separation and discrimination nor the continuation of apartheid but it supports a free South Africa, free of all chains that have so far bound White South Africans.

The whimpering cries and tears of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly are based on fear and nothing else. My advice to him is to listen to the words of the Northern Sotho national anthem Morena boloka setshaba sa geso, which means “God bless our nation,” and not several nations or groups of nations or groups of races. God preserve our nation which is one South Africa, an undivided South Africa. It would be best for him to learn this national anthem by heart. This prayer is for the preservation of South Africa as one nation and not racial nationalism and separate nations.

I am quite happy to take part in this debate. We on this side of the House …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May I just be informed on which Bill the hon member is addressing us?

Order! I thank the hon member for Brakpan for drawing my attention to it. I am having a look at the Bill myself. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member must come back to the Bill, please.

Mr Speaker, I had done so already before that hon member interfered! [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House, the LP, did not find it difficult or controversial to accept the amendments in the Legal Aid Amendment Bill. We had no difficulty in supporting these measures.

The basic aim of this Bill is to give the State Attorney and the heads of departments the right to designate competent persons employed in other legal fields, not necessarily in the employ of the department, to represent them in their absence. It should, however, be borne in mind that this proposal is the result of the need that has arisen to employ the services of such experts from other sectors with a legal background or perhaps persons with an interest in legal aid to represent them in matters and meetings of the Legal Aid Board.

Section 8A of the principal Act empowers the board to collect and recover costs incurred in such cases where legal aid has been rendered to the litigant. According to clause 3, provision is built in to recover costs in respect of disputes where legal aid has been rendered. Costs incurred shall be taxed and charged in respect of the litigant or person to whom legal aid was rendered, in line with or equal to the services that would have been rendered by a legal representative.

In clauses 2(a), 2(b) and 4 provision is made to alter certain official titles which have through the years become obsolete. The major aim of these clauses is to update the Act. The Bill is straightforward. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the CP we are pleased to support this legislation, which actually seeks to empower heads of departments also to designate persons to serve on the Legal Aid Board on their behalf, under certain circumstances.

Furthermore, it is envisaged that not only in legal proceedings, but also in cases where normal disputes arise and are resolved, costs may be recovered by the Legal Aid Board in terms of the automatic cession which takes place at the conclusion of the legal aid agreement.

Legal aid is praiseworthy. I do not think there is a single one of us who would not like to ensure that legal aid is rendered to every litigant. However, this would not be possible. We must take care to ensure that those philosophers and armchair jurists who insist that this should be one of the rights entrenched in a charter of human rights, do not create expectations which can never be met. It would not be financially possible to render legal aid to every litigant in South Africa. This is also very clear from the statistics which emerge from the previous annual report of the South African Legal Aid Board.

I want to distinguish, however, between legal aid in the sense of financial aid, and access to the courts. These two things must not be confused. Everyone in South Africa has access to the courts. It is true that if one does not have the necessary finances, access is in many respects worthless if one cannot get there. However, the hon the Minister has done a great deal, in the form of the small claims courts, for example, to make it easier for people to state their case in court.

Mr Speaker, it is, in fact, also true—I think you and many others have experienced this—that there are even litigants who win court cases despite their legal representation! It is not always the legal representative who wins the case; in the final analysis it depends on the facts which are presented to the court.

An appeal is often made to professional people in the private sector to render legal aid. I think they often do this by acting as presiding officers in the small claims courts, for example. We must be careful, however, that we do not ultimately drain the productivity of the private sector and the legal practitioners to such an extent that they also become in need of legal aid rather than being the providers of legal aid. When all is said and done, everyone in that profession is working in order to earn a living for himself, and if there is too much encroachment in that area, he will in due course also become dependent on legal aid. We must guard against the trend of asking so much of people that we shall eventually have a semi-socialist state here in which an effort is made to give everything to everyone, something which we cannot afford because the finance for this cannot be supplied by the State or the private sector.

In the report of the Legal Aid Board it is said that an appeal was made to the private sector to contribute money for legal aid. It is quite strange how much legal aid for certain aspects of legal matters sometimes comes from overseas, whilst not a single cent has been contributed here for needy people who also wish to take their case, whether it be a divorce or an accident case, to court. For that legal aid, reliance is made solely on the State and no assistance has been rendered by the private sector, although an appeal has been made to them in that regard.

In conclusion, I should like to congratulate Mr Scholtz. I see he has now attained the status of a director. I think this is well deserved. I made the acquaintance of Mr Scholtz in the days when I practised and I can assure hon members that I can hardly see there being a better person than Mr Scholtz to occupy this post. He is indeed fully abreast of matters. He has always attempted to render assistance wherever it may have been required, and I wish him a long and happy career in this post.

Mr Chairman, the Legal Aid Amendment Bill, 1989, seeks to amend the Legal Aid Act, 1969, substantially in two respects only. Firstly, that the members of the Legal Aid Board, comprising the State Attorney and the heads of departments, be empowered to designate persons employed outside the department to represent them at meetings of the board during their absence. This proposal flows from the fact that it is sometimes necessary to involve experts from other sectors who may have an interest in legal aid or aspects thereof, to be present at meetings of the Legal Aid Board.

Section 8A of the principal Act empowers the board to recover costs in cases where legal aid is rendered to a litigant in legal proceedings. Clause 3 provides that costs may also be recovered in respect of disputes where legal aid has been rendered, but a settlement has been reached before litigation is proceeded with.

The Legal Aid Board, the Departments of Development Aid and Development Planning, the Administrations of the House of Assembly, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, the Treasury and the Commission for Administration have been consulted in respect of the amendments.

This is not a controversial Bill and I support it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank previous speakers for their support for this Bill. The joint committee accepted the Bill without any opposition and it was clear that no aspect of this Bill was in any way controversial in nature.

Certain consequential amendments, such as those to the official titles of heads of departments, are proposed in the Bill in order to bring them into line with titles which are currently applicable. The most important amendment, however, is probably the one in terms of which the Legal Aid Board is afforded the right to recover costs on an attorney-client basis where an action has not reached the litigation stage but has been resolved by way of a settlement. This is a sensible extension of existing prescriptions and requires no further argument, apart from pointing out that as a result, more money will remain available for legal aid and more people may be assisted. The principle must always be to make the legal system accessible to as many people as possible. Since this Bill has, inter alia, this very aim, it is a pleasure for me to support the Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, the Legal Aid Amendment Bill is certainly not in any way a contentious Bill. It did not take long for the Joint Committee on Justice to agree to it. Everybody supported the Bill and therefore we on this side of the House also support the Bill. Certain obsolete official titles and expressions are substituted in the Bill. Obviously we have no problem with that.

†Heads of departments will in terms of clause 2(c) also be empowered to designate persons not employed in their departments to represent them at meetings of the board. This amendment is to be welcomed because experts from other sectors may now also become involved with the business of the board.

Clause 3 will make it possible for the board to recover costs in cases where a settlement has been reached out of court. As the relevant section now reads, costs can only be recovered by the board where legal aid is rendered to a litigant in legal proceedings. I emphasise the words “litigant in legal proceedings”. This means that the board could not recover costs where a settlement was reached before legal proceedings had taken place. We therefore also support this clause because we think it is only fair that the board should be empowered to recover costs where legal aid has been rendered and a settlement is reached between the parties before the case is dealt with in court. More money will therefore be available to render legal aid to those people who really need it. Legal aid is run on a basis of private enterprise and therefore I do not see why costs should not have been recovered in the past. This clause was eagerly awaited and is now welcomed.

Clause 4 provides for the investment of moneys not immediately required with the Corporation for Public Deposits or as the Minister of Finance may determine. Moreover, the Auditor-General shall now audit the accounts of the board which makes things easier.

This Bill is not controversial and from our side we support it.

Mr Chairman, this Bill in itself is a totally innocuous Bill. It is absolutely non-contentious as has been evidenced to date in its passage through the joint committee. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to take up too much time of this House in discussing it.

However, while we are talking about legal aid we are in fact talking about a matter which should be of very grave concern generally to people throughout South Africa. I would like to support those hon members who have spoken before me in drawing attention to the fact that access to litigation and the courts is still way beyond the means of the vast majority of the people of South Africa.

I know that various steps—good steps such as the small claims courts—have been taken to improve the situation but it is still very far from satisfactory. I think the hon the Minister will be aware of this fact.

The high cost of litigation in South Africa is still a matter of major concern for all of us in this country. I believe that there is a very strong need to streamline procedure in order to bring access to the courts much closer to the people—whether they can afford it or not.

I believe if one goes to any of the courts around South Africa—on any particular day—one will see hundreds of people each day milling about the courts involved in some way or another with problems concerning themselves or their property. Very often they are people who do not understand what is going on but they are simply unable to afford to be represented.

I think that therefore while we are discussing legal aid we need to focus attention on this as a problem which has to be addressed urgently by the hon the Minister, the State and the department in consultation with the legal profession and the private sector in order to try to arrive at a solution to what is a problem of very great concern when one looks at access to the courts in this country.

With those words, as I have said, this Bill in itself is an improvement, it is a matter which will facilitate the granting of legal aid within the present parameters and as such we will support the measure as it stands.

Mr Chairman, as previous speakers have pointed out, the Bill deals mainly with the amendment of outdated terminology. The titles of certain officials are also altered. For example, this piece of legislation changes the title of Secretary to that of Director-General.

†One of the most important aspects of this particular piece of legislation, apart from legal aid in general, is the fact that a dispute and not only a legal action is included in the amendment to section 3 of the Act. Members of the Legal Aid Board tell me that often people request legal aid because they want to institute a legal action. The case is considered and legal aid is granted. The party is referred to an attorney where consultation takes place and action is instituted or perhaps a letter is written. Then, for some reason or another, the two parties in dispute settle without having to go to court. The lawyer then submits his account and gets paid. However, the Legal Aid Board experienced some difficulty in recovering any such amount from any of the parties because the question of a dispute was not contained in that particular section. With that we support the legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is nice to get up and support an hon Minister occasionally. As the hon member for Berea pointed out, this is an uncontroversial Bill. It is a Bill which is necessary to close an existing gap in the law. Although I also support the Bill, I want to make one or two observations.

Firstly, in matters of assistance in in forma pauperis, it was necessary for the attorney and the advocate to issue a certificate of probabilis causa. In legal aid matters that duty is not imposed on the legal practitioners because a representative of the board investigates probabilis causa.

If any member of the Legal Aid Board is listening to this, I would like to suggest, for serious consideration, that once legal aid is given, the attorney and/or the advocate should monitor the case and not merely act on the instructions of the client because very often, as experience has shown, people who do not pay their own legal fees are prepared to litigate to the nth degree. They are very often not prepared to settle the case and the attorney involved does not have the leverage to induce a settlement. Normally when a person is being recalcitrant, the attorney asks for more fees and this then induces a settlement. So the Legal Aid Board should perhaps monitor the situation and periodically ask for reports, once every six months for example. This would help to keep the costs of the Legal Aid Board down because, to the extent that there is indirect abuse of the provisions of legal aid, to that extent other persons who genuinely qualify for legal aid are deprived of that aid.

In that context I would like to point out that the total amount available to the Legal Aid Board is totally insufficient to meet the needs of that board, as well as the demands of the public. After all there can be no real justice unless there is reasonable access to justice. If poverty impedes that access, then justice is denied; and we have to see to it that justice is accessible. We also have to realise that money that comes from outside—and it is coming in in millions of rands—fills the coffers of certain practitioners who belong to certain particular political groupings. Good luck to them! Their clients probably need the legal aid. That does not mean that others should be denied legal aid when they need it.

The other factor is that the representatives of the Legal Aid Board refer clients to own affairs departments. That, with respect, is undesirable because frequently—I have come across this— clerks or officials in own affairs departments who deal with these applicants for legal aid know absolutely nothing about the principles involved. [Interjections.] The Legal Aid Board is staffed by qualified people and they should make the assessment without referring it back to someone else. With those remarks I would like to also support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon members who support the Bill, and that is every participant so far. I shall try my best not to say something controversial that will disrupt the relaxed mood pertaining to this Bill.

The fact is that this Bill has created the opportunity for a very interesting debate on the question of whether or not the Government provides sufficient legal aid. Such a debate did not, however, take place because there is sufficient evidence to indicate that during the past few years, especially the past three years, we have come forward with a drastic increase in legal aid. To a degree this is an answer to the question of the hon member for Reservoir Hills, namely that we have brought about an adjustment and amendment to the budgetary procedure so that we were able to indicate, with the authorisation of the hon the Minister of Finance, that we could expect a certain amount from the Treasury until the 1990s. That is an indication of what the debate could have held in store. The hon member for Reservoir Hills merely skimmed the surface.

At the same time it would have been irresponsible to expect the Government to comply, in an unbridled and uncontrolled manner, with requests for an increasing budget for legal aid, for the simple reason that we are providing legal aid in this country in a large diversity of spheres.

I should like to begin with the legal profession. It is well known that they never publicise the legal aid they provide by way of reduced fees.

The attorney who does not charge for his services, is also misguided and if this is applies to attorneys, it also applies to a large extent to advocates. I want to combine these two professions and thank them both. It is well known that as far as pro deo fees are concerned, the advocates work for reduced fees. It is also known that there are other forms of service rendered by them that are regarded as a measure of legal aid.

Recently legal clinics have also been established in this country. The universities rely heavily on budgets which in turn are backed by the Government. In this way we provide indirect legal aid and today there is hardly a university that does not maintain a lively legal clinic that is providing a diversity of legal services. In this way we can continue.

One of the speakers at a conference held last year in Potchefstroom, and subsequently an advocate on the occasion of the General Bar Conference in Cape Town, itemised those points that indicate legal aid in this country, that cannot be quantified by the Government in the form of a budget, but where the Government does make a contribution, although indirectly, as in the case of the universities.

Therefore to say that the legal aid is provided from this budget, would be incorrect. I repeat that we could have debated about this, and that to a great extent is my reply to the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

†I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills—I will be dealing with the speakers in reverse order—has made another valuable observation to which I will pay the necessary attention. He suggested that court cases or at least the litigation process, should be monitored very closely by the Legal Aid Board.

My impression is that each and every claim is properly evaluated by the Legal Aid Board. The members are experts. We have a very sensitive and well-trained board which gives guidelines to the director of the Legal Aid Board. They evaluate these claims and usually aid is only awarded if they are satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the case of civil litigation.

We also have the situation where legal aid is limited to an area. Of course we would like the area to be much wider but due to limited funds, as far as the budget is concerned, it is not always possible. Nevertheless, as far as criminal matters are concerned, we have a great variety of areas where we do render assistance.

Therefore, I think that the very issue of monitoring would apply mainly to civil matters. I think that is what the hon member has in mind.

I will pass it on to them for this simple reason that we all, as practitioners, know that cases may take a twist which should perhaps activate an attorney to report back to the Legal Aid Board. If it is not done, it could mean that the Legal Aid Board is mulcted through unnecessary costs. Therefore I accept what the hon member has suggested and I will pass it on.

I am dealing with other hon members in reverse order. The hon member for Berea referred to the high costs of litigation. To him I would like to point out: granted, but we have the Rules Board attending to it. [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, when a previous amendment was effected to this Bill in 1984, hon members on our side of the House had strong objections in principle to the entire concept of artificial insemination outside marriage. At that stage it was already technically possible to unite male and female gametes or sex cells outside the body, also outside the context of marriage, and then to replace them within the female uterus for the rest of the pregnancy.

In our opinion legislation is actually taken a step further in the amending Bill before us, in that in clause 25 section 37 of the principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subparagraph and I quote:

In other words, as it is stated here, according to our interpretation, provision may also be made now for experimental research on a human embryo, which in our opinion is already a human being, and which therefore of necessity may lead to the destruction of that life if such an experiment should fail. Now the hon the Minister may argue that proper control will be exercised by means of regulations as regards the nature of practices which will be permitted and that it is precisely by regulation, which is mentioned here, that he wishes to prohibit what is contemplated in the addendum.

Nevertheless a regulation remains subordinate to a legal provision and we would be neglecting our duty if we did not have our serious opposition to this amendment placed on record. Abuses are possible in consequence of this amendment and, although we may be in agreement on other aspects of the legislation which run parallel to the progress of medical science, we feel so strongly about this aspect that we shall oppose this legislation for this reason because there is no question in it, for instance, that genetic manipulation in a test tube is illegal.

In a previous debate on an amendment to the same Act we all warned against practices which might arise here. I quote from our debate on the same legislation (Hansard, 4 July 1984, col 10540):

Yesterday’s report on the front page of Rapport, in which such a possibility was taken further in that a woman could make herself available to act as a surrogate mother for remuneration, in my opinion also falls very narrowly within the provisions of this legislation.

We consider that the opportunity for human abuse in this regard is increased by this amendment in that existing provisions concerning the code of conduct for artificial insemination and the keeping and provision of registers, reports and notices may be revoked in order to achieve greater flexibility.

I want to point out that there is great opposition worldwide to experimental work in vitro on human embryos. In this connection I want to quote from an article which appeared in The Citizen of 7 April which dealt with a report from Jerusalem. I quote:

These are the four largest religious groups—

In addition I want to give the standpoint of Afrikaans churches which, as far as I could establish, are in agreement with that of the DR Church where this subject was dealt with at the fifth meeting of the General Synod of 1978. At that synod this matter was discussed in great detail. I want to quote only a few phrases to hon members. I quote from p 284:

This lays the finger on our problem. In our opinion this is exactly what may happen in terms of this legislation if it is left as it is before us now.

The synodal meeting of the DR Church really went into this subject in depth and in a scientific manner. It also went into the biological, emotional, genetic, social and juridical aspects of therapeutic donor insemination and I think they reached the following conclusion, and I quote from page 290:

As I have said, there are other objectives of this Bill before us which provide for changed circumstances since the inception of the Human Tissue Act, 1983, which are necessary and to which we have no objection and which are in line with new developments in medical science.

The extent of the serious objection which we have on ethical, moral and religious grounds to the possibilities in clause 5(d), which are not expressly prohibited in this legislation and which, in other words, may permit something like possible genetic manipulation, compels us to adopt a stance against this Bill as it appears before us now.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg will pardon me if I do not react to his speech. I think the hon the Minister will reply to the points he has raised here.

The LP supports the Human Tissue Amendment Bill. We are aware of and have understanding for people who have religious objections or who object in principle to this measure. Our opinion, however, is that circumstances change and provision and adjustments have to be made. Practically, procedures for making human tissue available, especially posthumously, must be facilitated. That is why this amendment makes provision for the Director-General of National Health and Population Development to authorise the donation of tissue to an institution or person after the death of a person, in the event of persons who could give permission not being traced. The Director-General may, in turn, appoint someone in writing to fulfil this task.

Provision is also being made to legalise the provision of donated tissue by institutions or persons so that universities and technikons can receive donations of tissue. It is also gratifying that inspectors of anatomy will be appointed. In order to have suitable control, provision is also being made for investigating officers with the necessary expertise to be appointed from the private sector so that they can assist the inspectors of anatomy in specific cases.

We also support the measure that the import and export of human tissue may now take place by issuing a permit. Although tissue may be imported and exported, the amending Bill also makes provision for strict control. In the event of a deviation from the conditions of such a permit for the import of any tissue, measures may be taken against such an offender. He will then be forced to destroy such tissue, blood, blood product or gamete at his own expense or take it out of the country.

Should he fail to do this, the State can confiscate it and deal with it at the expense of the owner and as it sees fit. This also affords the public protection.

We agree wholeheartedly that the removal of certain tissue or gamete of minors is expressly prohibited by this measure. We support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, we thank the hon member for Swartland for his party’s support. He gave a very good synopsis of the legislation. Thank you very much for that.

As regards the hon member for Pietersburg in connection with the CP’s objections to clause 25 in the main, I merely want to tell him that we understand his objection, because this is an extremely sensitive matter and one is dealing with extremely complex ethical and even legal problems concerning the issues of when a person is dead or when life begins, etc.

On the other hand regulations are of course also essential, because medical science is developing so rapidly that what may not be a problem today may become one tomorrow. I can consequently appreciate that one cannot come back here every time this happens and draft a law, but instead give the Minister regulating powers which may be, as is stated somewhere in this legislation, “at his discretion”.

I merely want to say that at the religious level we naturally share the hon member’s Christian and Calvinistic principles, and therefore I have no doubt that either we or the hon the Minister will be able to resolve this problem to the satisfaction of the CP too.

†In an issue of a medical journal, SA Family Practice of February 1989, Dr M H Cassimjee wrote an article and I will quote the first paragraph of that article. He said:

It still seems to be so today after having listened to the hon member for Pietersburg. I wish to quote further:

Before I go any further, I just wish to say that for a moment I forgot to mention that the hon member for Britstown, who is the chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Welfare, is in hospital at the moment.

*As hon members know, he underwent a by-pass operation last week. I understand he is doing very well. On behalf of all hon members here I want to wish him everything of the best and a speedy recovery. Of course, the by-pass operation he had is a highly specialised operation. Before I come to that I want to say thank you very much to the joint committee for their loyal co-operation and good support. I must say, we had a bit of a false start—or perhaps I should say we were on the wrong track—with regard to another piece of legislation. However, we work together so well that even that piece of legislation did not take long to sort out. I do not think this will happen again. [Interjections.]

To get back to Egypt—it is very interesting that intra-uterine devices serving as contraceptives have been found in Egyptian mummies. I am not now referring to mommies with an “o” but to mummies with a “u”. In other word, as the Bible says, there is nothing new under the sun. This was at least 2000 years ago.

Now I have found in the medical world that overweight people want medicine to lose weight whereas underweight people want medicine to gain weight. Women with large breasts want to have operations to reduce their size, whereas women with small breasts want operations to increase their size. Women who fall pregnant easily want preparations to prevent this from happening, and now and then a woman comes to your consulting rooms begging you for an abortion. At the same time there are other people who come to you with tears in their eyes to beg for what this legislation deals with, namely to be able to fall pregnant by means of in vitro fertilisation and other types of fertilisation and insemination. Everyone agitates for change.

Organ transplants, artificial insemination and fertilisation are all highly technical forms of medicine. This legislation deals with high science and South Africa does not take a back seat to anyone in the world. We are proud of this and that is why we must also introduce legislation of this kind to improve ourselves and keep our science at the highest and most modern level.

However, of necessity this results in extremely high costs. If one looks at the four or five most important reasons for the high costs of medical services, these transplants and highly specialised medical services are among these reasons for the high costs of medicine.

I do not want to say too much about the high costs of medicine, because then I may deviate too much from the legislation. I merely want to state that while we are discussing legislation such as this to make provision for this highly specialised medicine, we must always bear in mind that there must be a balance between this highly technical medicine and the ordinary things. We must eradicate tuberculosis in the Western Cape. We must eradicate malaria. We must give children food. There must be a balance.

Now I want to ask hon members where we must draw the line. Must we draw the line before the hon member for Britstown had the operation? With the money that operation cost one could feed many children. Surely it is unreasonable to say he may not undergo the operation; and I am therefore not going to argue this point any further. All I want to say is that we must maintain a balance between what we are now discussing and ordinary national health.

These proposed amendments to the Human Tissue Act, No 65 of 1983, are of a divergent nature— the hon member for Swartland mentioned a number of examples—and are aimed at removing the problems being experienced in practice and the legal uncertainty, eliminating unnecessary red tape, as the hon member indicated, and making human tissue more readily available for medical, dental and research purposes. This is therefore, if one may put it that way, practical legislation.

I think the hon member also referred to something else, namely that provision is now being made for the Director-General, or someone nominated by him, or an official authorised thereto, to authorise the donation of tissue, if this has not already been planned and it is essential. I think I can say that this is a case where one should rather save the living than protect the dead. If one must choose and permission to do so is not readily available it must be possible to give such authorisation.

In conclusion I want to tell hon members that this amending Bill was published in the Gazette for comments and that the principles have been cleared up separately with various interested persons at the University of Pretoria—of course this is by far the most important, because it is the best University—as well as the Universities of Natal, Stellenbosch, Cape Town, the Orange Free State and the Witwatersrand.

This legislation has been carefully considered. It is legislation which I take great pleasure in supporting, while appreciating the hon member’s problem, which I think we will probably be able to resolve.

Mr Chairman, the general objects of the Human Tissue Amendment Bill are to make provision for changed circumstances and for the more effective practical application of existing provisions.

One of the many aspects is that the Government does not have sufficient qualified people with the necessary expertise to perform the function of the removal of human tissue and other allied functions. Therefore this amending Bill makes provision to involve persons with the necessary expertise from the private sector in investigations. This amending Bill also prohibits the removal of certain tissues from the bodies of minors.

Certain communities of different religious denominations are averse to the removal and transplant of certain tissues in the body, as well as blood transfusions. This Bill makes provision for this and takes adequate precautions so that people with those religious beliefs are not affected by the promulgation of and amendments to the Bill.

Finally, the principles of this amending Bill have been cleared with various interested persons and the universities of the RSA and the Bill has received the blessings of the various universities. I therefore support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before this House is of a highly technical nature. The fact that it is before the House at all is an indication of the important changes which have taken place in the medical world in recent years.

It covers of course a wide range of changes which have become necessary since the principal Act of 1983. We accept the fact that there is no doubt that some of the changes proposed by the Bill were of major concern to this party when it was first introduced several months ago.

This party, after careful consideration of the Bill together with these amendments which were subjected to long discussion and debate in the joint committee, has great pleasure in accepting this Bill. In fact, I want to say that we welcome it.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity. We have understanding for the sentiments of people and parties, but we also have understanding for and great faith in our medical services, as they are being rendered at present. The DRP supports the Bill because it makes provision and also makes arrangements for circumstances that have changed since the inception of the Human Tissue Act, No 65 of 1983. The amendment is drastic and important, and the future will determine whether further changes must be brought about.

Mr Chairman, it is not only the CP which questions some of the subdivisions of the Bill; many churches do too. The CP does not object to this Bill in general. The Bill contains many essentials which are of importance in our time and which we should also like to support but there is one paragraph which lies very heavily on our hearts and that is the amendment to section 37 of Act 65 of 1983 which reads as follows:

How far does “research of whatever nature” go? Is it intended to bring together a male and a female gamete and to produce a living being capable of existing for 50 or 60 years? Is the intention to add yet another gamete or gametes to the union of the two gametes, to join an animal body to a human head, to try to change the brain of a person, or is the intention to try to change or even to destroy the human body experimentally? How far does this “research of whatever nature” extend? We must remember that we are dealing here not only with Christian researchers but also the person without ethics who merely wants to experiment as he pleases. That is why we are concerned that this Parliament may agree that “research of whatever nature” may be done with gametes which are brought together.

The intention is also that it should be outside the human body. That is to say, the reaction of this small living being outside the human body has to be observed. What will this little being be like who has not known a mother, who has merely been raised in a test tube and who depends entirely on the cold reality of the test tube?

Let us leave the birth of a human being at that because the point at which the male and the female gametes are brought together is regarded by 99% of Christian churches as the point where life begins. These are Christian ethics and we cannot change them. For this reason it is important to us that at this point where life begins no experiments will be carried out by humans and it will not be treated as if it is no life at all. This is why we are also concerned about the concept of the product of the union. There is no such thing as the product of the union of a male and a female gamete. It is a living being. The moment male and female gametes unite, a life exists. That is why it is the standpoint of the churches that that life is not cheap or that it may be played with or experimented with. That life is a person—a tiny developing person. That is why we request that the formulation of the text be scrutinised more carefully.

Christian ethics are firm on this standpoint. It is not only the union of a male and female gamete but also the way in which the union is effected. Man does not consist only of the spirit but he must also be in total control of his life. That is why I am accountable to God for my body and what I do with it.

In connection with artificial insemination of a donor, the thought often occurs nowadays that we have a problem with numbers—there are no longer as many children up for adoption and we have to come up with some other plan to supplement the number of our children. The standpoints of the churches have always been that we do not involve a third person in a marriage for the sake of numbers. It remains the father, mother and children. There is no place in a marriage for a third person. It might happen that, in a case in which the name of a donor in artificial insemination is not recorded, a halfbrother and half-sister could easily get married because they would not know that they have the same father.

I want to mention the following points regarding the regulations which will be made. I have known the hon the Minister for many years—we were together at the University of Pretoria in our first year—and I know he comes of a family which holds Christian views. I know that they are firm regarding this standpoint of a third person and of experimenting with a tiny life. I know the hon the Minister will apply regulations but he will not always be here. How sure can we be that the next Ministers will really uphold these standpoints of Christian ethics? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the main this Bill deals with the Inquests Act, No 58 of 1959, and the Human Tissue Act, No 65 of 1983. It has become important today to amend the existing legislation because of the advances which medical science has made regarding not only transplants, but in vivo and in vitro fertilisation. The demand for and frequency of this type of practice has made it necessary for legislation to govern such procedures. Therefore I cannot see why the hon members for Pietersburg and Upington object to the Bill. These practices exist, and the Bill merely seeks to govern such procedures. Both the Inquests Act and the Human Tissue Act concern themselves with the retainment, storage, removal, donation, transplant and disposal of human tissue.

In lighter vein, in view of the fact that there have been so many transplants and so much tissue removal in the House of Delegates, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he cannot perhaps pass a Bill containing a code of conduct to stifle these practices.

The Bill also repeals the provisions regarding artificial insemination. The Bill contains many amendments and deletions which I do not consider it necessary to elaborate on at this stage. Suffice it to say they are absolutely necessary to streamline the Act.

There have been religious objections, especially by Muslim members in our House and the House of Representatives. Donations of tissue do not go down well with certain religious groups. However, this is nothing new because the existing Act has always contained such provisions. As far as I am concerned, it does not offend anybody’s religious convictions. No post mortem will be carried out on any person whose religious convictions do not permit it.

In fact, one of the hon members in the House of Delegates has brought up the question of whether or not circumcisions by a rabbi or by an imam are illegal, but in that case these tissues are not used for transplantation of any kind. They are discarded and disposed of. If one looks at it, one can even say that a barber who removes one’s hair is removing tissue illegally. With this I wish to tell the hon the Minister that from my side of the House I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the previous hon speaker for his support of this legislation.

The Human Tissue Act provides for the protection of the interests of both the donor and the recipient without impeding the procedures that are usually carried out efficiently and quickly, and sometimes under enormous tension. The transplanting of organs has become such a dynamic subject and discipline, however, and there has been such rapid progress that it has become urgently essential to amend this legislation.

Consequently the amendments to the Human Tissue Act are divergent and mainly intend to eliminate problems that were experienced in practice. These include red tape, as was mentioned by previous hon speakers. Human tissue should be made more readily available without sacrificing control.

Clause 2 provides that in a case in which the relatives of a deceased cannot be traced, the Director-General of National Health and Population Development may grant permission for the removal of necessary tissue from the deceased. Previously only a district surgeon could grant permission. These conditions were too strict and have now been abolished.

Clause 7 provides that the provisions with regard to the removal of human tissue during judicial post mortem examinations be extended so as to cover any post mortem examination. In the case of rare tissue of which not enough is donated, the relevant institution and person who need the tissue can be assisted by way of ministerial authorisation. These new arrangements should make it easier to obtain the said kind of tissue.

The amendment in Clause 18 will mean that the importation and exportation of all human tissue will be subject to the issue of a permit. In other words, better control will be exercised.

We have sympathy with the objection in principle expressed by the hon members for Pieters-burg and Witbank. However, the repeal of section 22 does not involve any concessions with regard to in vitro or artificial fertilization. In fact, the whole aspect is regulated by means of existing regulations which are under review at present.

Artificial insemination is an established medical procedure in respect of which legislation and regulations already exist. The Government’s function is simply to regulate this procedure, not to sanction or propagate it. In fact, if it is not legalised and regulated, serious malpractices could arise. The mere legalising of the procedure does not deny anyone the right to participate in it. In the same way the fact that swimming pools are open on Sundays does not oblige anyone to swim on Sundays. The individual is still free to exercise his own moral preferences and to decide whether or not to participate.

Clause 13 amends section 19 so as to prohibit the removal of gametes and certain other tissue from the bodies of minors. There is no doubt that this legislation is based on Christian ethical norms.

Since the first sensational heart transplant, which was successfully carried out by Prof Barnard in 1967, a great deal of progress has been made and organ transplants have become increasingly important. This is common practice today, and it is a very effective method of treatment which considerably increases and enhances many people’s life expectancy and quality of life. As a result it will probably be necessary to adapt this legislation again in future in order to keep up with the immensely rapid progress that is being made in this connection.

On behalf of this side of the House I should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to thank the hon members for Pietersburg, Swartland, Lang-laagte, Bayview, Durban North, Upington, Witbank, Montford and Welkom for their contributions to the discussion of this amending Bill, which has very important technical implications for all of us.

Allow me to react first of all to the hon member for Langlaagte, who conveyed our good wishes to the chairman of the joint committee. The hon member has undergone a big operation, and I am very pleased to say that the by-pass was very successful.

What we have before us are two aspects which make arrangements with regard to artificial insemination, embryo fertilization with reference to that new science which was developed recently, as well as transplants.

I immediately want to assure the hon members for Pietersburg and Witbank that this party and I have no doubt that what we have before us, in this connection in terms of regulations and legislation, must comply with the Christian ethical standard of medical practice as confirmed over the years. The hon member for Pietersburg referred to the 1984 legislation concerning donor insemination, and it is true that this amendment before us is an improvement in regulating donor insemination in that we have better documentation as far as the donors are concerned. It is of the utmost importance that we do this, so that we can ensure that those people who are used as donors have been tested for certain genetic defects, for example Aids, and that there is no possibility whatsoever of the existence of any family relationship. I want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg, and he knows this, that I am aware that the church cannot sanction donor insemination. In fact, I never did so in my own practice and department. The fact of the matter, however, is that this is practised in South Africa, and consequently we must regulate it.

The hon member referred to clause 25, which deals with the amendment of section 37 of the principal Act. Section 37 of the principal Act refers to certain aspects in respect of which regulations can be promulgated to regulate certain matters. This clause 25 exists specifically to regulate aspects of research with reference to embryo transplants, because I want to state quite clearly and unequivocally that we do not regard improper interference with and genetic manipulation of the embryo and the zygote as being within the bounds of ethical medical conduct. For that reason I am quite prepared to consider an amendment in which genetic manipulation of that zygote is declared out of order and is prohibited.

Furthermore I want to say that surrogate motherhood, especially commercial surrogate motherhood, is completely unacceptable, and I shall include that in the regulations.

I think it is very clear at this stage that I must also reassure the hon member for Witbank that where regulations are promulgated, those regulations can always be tested in the discussion of the relevant Minister’s Vote. It is true that one would like to include all aspects in the legislation, but it takes no less than two years for one to amend the Act should one wish to do so. Consequently it is better to handle the matter in this way. I therefore want to reassure the hon members for Pietersburg and Witbank that this side of the House has no doubt whatsoever that what we want to place on the Statute Book must always correspond with our Christian ethical norms.

The hon member for Swartland made a very good speech about the content of the Bill. In this connection he referred to institutions, for example, the University of Potchefstroom, which will be able to obtain certain material for their research in this way. We are grateful for that.

The hon member for Langlaagte made a wide-xanging speech and spoke candidly about mothers, pregnancies and all kinds of aspects. The hon member singled out the balance between primary care and the highly technological part of our medical world in a very clear and interesting fashion, however.

†I am grateful for the support of the hon member for Bayview and for the fact that he understands that the removal of tissue in this particular respect has no religious connotation.

I would like to thank the hon member for Durban North. He referred to the advance in medicine and I welcome his support.

*I welcome the support of the hon member for Upington, as well as the hon member for Montford.

†The hon member for Montford talked with great insight on the importance of transplantation. There is no doubt that in South Africa we have literally thousands of people waiting for kidney transplants. It is this Government’s opinion that through these changes to the Act and through our endeavours we must try to bring about the most equitable, efficient and beneficial means of access to donated organs for all patients awaiting transplants.

*I want to thank the hon member for Welkom. He spoke with insight. He pointed out an important aspect, viz that the individual is free to make his own decision. Unfortunately, however, in the world in which we live, one cannot always leave that which is done to the discretion of the individual. Consequently we have to have regulations for certain important matters that are of the greatest importance to the patient. What is at issue here, however, is an important aspect, viz the unborn child, and that is why we have certain ethical and very important responsibilities with regard to the foetus. That is one of the aspects that has been defined very well in this legislation.

In summary: I accept the amendments as published, and I shall consider an amendment that can deal with the genetic manipulation of zygotes.

Mr Chairman, one of the amendments in the Social Work Amendment Bill is to delete the definitions of “associated profession”, “associated worker” and “social work” and to insert the definition of “social auxiliary worker”. This amending Bill also defines the objects of the SA Council for Social Work. Among the many objects it shall, firstly, maintain and enhance the prestige, status and dignity of the profession of social work and the integrity of social workers, student social workers and social auxiliary workers. Secondly, to determine the minimum standards for the tuition and training of social workers. Thirdly, to encourage the study of social work.

It has also been said that many industries employ persons who are unqualified to perform the duties of social workers. The amendments in this Bill take adequate care of such anomalous situations. Instead of “associated workers”, provision is made for “social auxiliary workers”, who are persons with less training who perform social work under the supervision of a registered social worker, for instance, probation officers and the so-called marriage counsellors.

Finally, it is my hope that sufficient posts will be created for social auxiliary workers in industries and institutions so that the quality of life of those requiring such services will be improved.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bayview gave such an excellent introduction to this Bill that it is almost unnecessary for me to use these three minutes. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, in 1929 the first course, which was a one year course in social work, started at the University of Pretoria. In 1931 a BA degree in Social Sciences was introduced at the University of Stellenbosch as well as the University of Pretoria. The whole field of social work developed to such an extent that we now have 17 universities and other institutions where diploma and degree courses in social work can be taken.

*However, what is important, is that the Council for Social and Associated Workers was established in 1978. This is a statutory council which organises various aspects of the social work profession. Presently there are 6 575 registered social workers in South Africa. This amending Bill therefore deals with the important aspects of the council’s activities in relation to these 6 575 social workers.

I am convinced that this profession will go from strength to strength and I therefore wish to thank Prof Botha who is the president of this council and the registrar for their work in the past. I also wish to thank them for their hard work to table and debate this legislation with us today. Furthermore, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the joint committee for the meaningful amendments which were made to this legislation.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, and I am delighted to support the amendments to the Social Work Amendment Bill, proposed by the joint committee, in this House.

One is grateful to be able to praise the spirit of co-operation which prevailed in the joint committee, as well as the hon member for Parktown who, although he disagreed with the own affairs concept and character of the activities of the committee still supported the amendments to the amending Bill, so as not to delay the course of the legislation.

I should also like to link up with the hon member for Langlaagte in thanking the chairman of the joint committee on behalf of the House of Assembly. We wish him a speedy recovery and hope that the hon member for Parktown will look after him with the necessary care after his recent by-pass operation.

The proposed amendments arrange a number of technical points, but insert one new clause— clause 19—to arrange the membership of the Council for Social and Associated Workers up to 25 August 1992. This provision in respect of the period of office is necessary to arrange a nonrecurrent smooth transition of the relevant term of office of the 12 retiring council members, as from 25 November 1991.

The urgent handling of the amending Bill and the amendments thereto attest to the appreciation the joint committee has for social and associated workers. We take pleasure in demonstrating this to them. I am delighted to close with these words and support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the previous hon member who spoke. We objected in the joint committee to the definition of “social work” and it would have created many practical problems if the definition of “social work” had remained in the amending Bill. Certain welfare organisations would have been placed in an invidious position. Now that the definition of “social work” has been deleted, the LP supports the amending Bill.

The point of departure of the amending Bill is to serve the interests of the individual and the community by preventing the exploitation of the public by unqualified and incompetent people. The amending Bill regulates the manner in which the interests of the profession are to be seen to, inter alia by the training of social workers and social auxiliary workers who can assist social workers, exercising discipline over social and auxiliary workers and providing for private practice and the registration of specialists.

The Social Work Amendment Bill provides for the following amendments to the existing Act. The concepts of “associated worker” and “associated profession” are deleted to be replaced by “social auxiliary worker”. The definition of unprofessional and improper conduct is extended. The name of the council is changed and it is now known as the South African Council for Social Work. The sequence of the council’s objectives and ideas regarding “associated worker” and “profession” change. The approval of qualifications may be withdrawn if training institutions do not comply with standards.

Provision is also made for the registration of specialists. The disciplinary committee may also impose penalties now in addition to conducting inquiries. The court record of proceedings in which a social worker is found guilty may be used as prima facie evidence in a disciplinary inquiry. With these words we of the LP therefore support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, the DP supports this Bill. We accept the fact that it is an important step that social work is put on a more professional basis. There can be no doubt whatsoever that this Bill achieves this.

I think it is important that at this time we consider why social work requires a far greater degree of professionalism than in years gone by. We have to accept that it is due to the fact that society has undergone enormous changes throughout the world in recent decades. Perhaps the most important reason for this is the technological changes which have transformed society and which have obviously transformed the world in which our children grow up. All of us will agree that we cannot compare the modern times in which our children grow up with the world in which we grew up. There is of course far greater pressure on all of us. Technological changes have transformed society throughout the world.

In South Africa we have to accept that there is another major factor affecting social life which places greater stress on life and consequently on social work and social welfare. I refer of course to 41 years of apartheid rule. Stresses and strains in society in South Africa are as much the result of fear, frustrations, anger, hurt etc caused by apartheid as they are the result of the technological changes which we have experienced in recent years.

Social work has become an increasingly important aspect of life and the Government has certainly had to involve itself with this particularly important part of our life. Social work can no longer be left in the hands of the unqualified— the associated workers, as they were known. Social work does, in fact, need highly qualified and highly specialised people.

Even so, while we accept the need for highly qualified people, the DP is still greatly concerned with social work which is far too preoccupied with what might be termed curative social work, rather than social work which is designed to protect people from the ravages of society. In other words, we should be trying to help people who have been affected by society, rather than trying to protect them from society itself in the first place.

We are still too concerned with curative social work, rather than preventative social work. We are trying, for example, to help children who have been hurt or molested or affected by society, rather than protecting them from these aspects in the first place. We hope that by professionalising social work in the way that this Bill proposes, we may move a long way towards achieving this particular goal. Consequently we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to say that I, too, support the Bill.

The aims of the Bill are threefold. Firstly, it changes the definition of associated workers to that of social auxiliary workers. I would agree that this is a better term to use. Secondly, it makes provision for the establishment of a Council for Social Work, to extend it terms of office, to give it certain powers and to define its functions. All this is designed to upgrade the profession of social workers. Of course, there exists a Council for Social and Associated Workers, but the Bill changes the name to the South African Council for Social Work. Thirdly, it defines its functions with regard to the registration of social workers, student social workers and auxiliary workers.

The Bill deals specifically with the objects of such a council, namely to protect the interests of the profession and to determine the minimum standard of tuition and training of social workers, the qualifications for registration of social workers, and the standards of professional conduct of such workers, student social workers and auxiliary workers.

It also exercises effective control over the profession. In this one can see that the objectives contained in this Bill thus envisaged are very much the same as those of the South African Medical and Dental Council and the South African Nursing Council.

As regards discipline, which is dealt with under section 15 of the Act, we on the joint committee encountered one or two snags. In the first place, hon members of the House of Representatives were a little uncertain as to the legal status of people who work within their constituencies without qualifications and without being registered. Certain hon members felt that within their constituencies they had workers who were in fact doing social work and as such could fall foul of the law. For that matter, so would teachers, lawyers, doctors and priests, because all of them do social work according to the definition of social work, as outlined on page 4 of the Bill.

This panic, however, need not have arisen because on page 8, dealing with section 15(4), the definition becomes clear and I quote:

If that person, therefore, receives no money, as in the case of our constituency workers, they are not transgressing the Act.

Sections 15 and 19 deal with the upkeep of a register and the restriction of social workers. To this I have no objections.

Section 21 deals with disciplinary action into alleged improper and unprofessional conduct. As I have already said, this procedure is very much the same as that of the South African Nursing Council and the South African Medical and Dental Council.

Section 17 of the Act deals with the recognition of certain training institutions and the qualifications and standards prescribed. If they are not adhered to, the Bill provides for the disqualification of such an institution. This, as I said at the start, is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of a very high standard. We on the joint committee had no objections to this.

The Bill has many amendments, mostly concerning terminology such as the correct definition of a social worker and the type of action to be taken against alleged improper conduct of social workers. Most of these amendments were discussed and finally agreed to by the joint committee. In the end, the Bill was accepted and agreed to with all of its amendments. On behalf of my House I wish to state that we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I find it a pleasure to support this Social Work Amendment Bill on behalf of the CP.

I want to ask the hon the Minister only one question. On p 6 of the legislation before us that part of clause 6 which would have inserted a new section 15(1)(d) has been omitted although it did appear in the original Bill. An amendment has been effected and in the new legislation this sentence no longer appears—it has been deleted—and it dealt with the employer’s situation regarding a social worker. It was included in the original clause 6(1), which was to have replaced section 15 of the principal Act, and read—

This affects the employer who therefore would have been guilty of an offence.

The Federated Chamber of Industries made representations, however, that this provision be deleted from the legislation, something which was then done.

The memorandum, which still appears in the amended legislation, contains this sentence inter alia:

Now that part of the section has actually been deleted. I want to ask the hon Minister what the reason was for the omission and whether the professional fraternity and the Council for Social and Associated Workers are satisfied and were consulted about this amendment, especially as it is indicated—as I read aloud—that it was precisely the object to punish employers in this respect too.

Clause 12 amends section 21 of the principal Act to remove all obscurities concerning the power of the council to reach a decision and impose a penalty while clauses 13 and 14 make further provision for improved regulation of the disciplinary powers which the council may exercise.

I really want to express the hope that this Bill will contribute to a further consolidation of the professional status of social workers so that they will be less dependent upon charity. A social worker recently described her profession as follows in an article and I should like to quote her:

I honestly hope that this Bill will also contribute to placing the profession of a social worker on an equal footing with other professions to a greater extent.

Mr Chairman, social work as an organised activity is really a product of the Jewish and the Christian ethic. Although the other great religions exhorted and enjoined their followers to do welfare work they never became organised as such. Therefore, it is quite right that social work should be recognised as a profession and properly professionalised. However, the danger will be if one tries to stultify the performance of social welfare work by voluntary workers, because welfare can never be properly conducted either by the State alone or by professional organisations alone. Without the direct assistance of lay social workers and lay welfare workers, welfare work can never effectively be done. One has got to watch that.

Every priest is a social worker, and the wife of every “predikant” has to be an unorganised and unpaid social worker without any professional qualifications. The dividing line therefore has to be maintained and one has to be careful it does not get so blurred that the actual performance of welfare work in the community is damaged. Welfare work is only truly done properly in a partnership between welfare agencies—voluntary welfare agencies, where welfare workers are not paid and where the incentive is not the remuneration they get at the end of the month but rather the satisfaction of helping other people—and professional organisations on the one hand and the State on the other.

It was the Salvation Army organisation under General Booth which first performed organised welfare work in the Western world or in any part of the world. The Salvation Army did not consist of professionally organised social workers. The St Vincent de Paul Society does not consist of professionally organised welfare workers. Therefore the need for that has to be recognised. At the same time we need more and more professionally organised welfare workers and it is necessary that agencies be assisted by increasing their subsidy. The subsidy available at the present time is rather unrealistically low. I recognise that one cannot demand a 100% subsidy because that would then to an extent diminish the role played by voluntary agencies. I would suggest that the hon the Minister should seriously consider a 90% subsidy for professionally qualified social workers.

In order to provide an incentive for more people to qualify, the number of bursaries for students who wish to engage in that profession should also be increased very substantially. Indeed no student who wishes to qualify in a career in social work and who has not the financial means to do so, should be denied the opportunity so to qualify. There of course the State can play a very important role.

I belong to an organisation in which we have 732 welfare workers who are all unpaid and who work on a part-time basis. They do their work in the evenings, on Saturdays and Sundays. That organisation works very successfully. That is the kind of partnership that we have to promote and stimulate in this country if social work is to be done successfully.

Mr Chairman, the DRP supports this legislation since it is being adapted and changed to eliminate malpractices, abuses and uncertainties. It also authorises the Minister to promulgate regulations in order to provide for additional matters.

It is pleasing to see that the definitions of “associated profession” and “associated worker” will be deleted and that qualifications will serve as a criterion.

The work of social workers, especially in our community, is a matter of urgency and one can merely hope, and this is my desire, that as a result of this legislation, the work of social workers will come into its own.

Mr Chairman, permit me to thank hon members who participated in the debate, the hon member Mrs R Jager, the hon members for Bayview, Montford, Swartland, Durban North, Pietersburg, Reservoir Hills and Upington.

†The salient feature of this Bill—as we heard—is that it will do away with the declaration of certain groups as being associated professions and with the registration of associated workers. Instead the Bill provides for social auxiliary workers. These workers—as their name implies—will function under the direct control and supervision of registered social workers. They will be part and parcel of the overall structure of the social work profession and they will be obliged to register with the council.

This amendment, that is to say the abolition of the associated professions, necessitates an amendment to the name of the council and the title of the Act itself. Henceforth the council will be called the South African Council for Social Work.

The hon member for Upington referred to certain regulations and it is true that provision is also made to prescribe certain regulations such as the registration and conduct of private practice, the registration of additional qualifications and of specialities and the conditions subject to which any social worker may practise the profession of social work in respect of a registered speciality. Thirdly, the Bill pertains especially to the profession of social work.

I would like to thank the hon member for Bayview. As I have said, he gave an excellent introduction and he referred to the importance of auxiliary workers.

*The hon nominated member Mrs Jager spoke knowledgeably, and in my view her contribution was a very worthy one, because she actually gave the principle of the statutory amendment in a nutshell.

I am grateful for the hon member for Swartland’s contribution. This again proves that very valuable amendments were adopted and that we have thus furnished the best possible product.

†The hon member for Durban North spoke at length of the importance of the new, shall we say, facility which is being created by the use of highly qualified, professional people. I agree with him entirely that we should rather concentrate on the remedial side than the curative.

The hon member for Montford really made a very important contribution because there is no doubt that there are many similarities between the council we are talking about now and the South African Medical and Dental Council and the South African Nursing Council. As a matter of fact, many of the issues are similar.

*It is a great privilege for me to point out one important aspect to the hon member for Pietersburg, who has been in Parliament so many years longer than I have, and that is that a memorandum is not part of a Bill. A memorandum is not part of a Bill. The hon member said that clause 6 was not in the Bill, although it appeared in the memorandum. He is quite right, but he should not have read the memorandum, because that is not part of the Bill. Hon members must never read the memorandum; just read the Bill! It is a mistake, however, and he is quite right, but it has nothing to do with the Bill.

He is quite correct, however, in saying that in future we shall have to give much more serious support to the profession. In case hon members do not know it, that profession recently received a salary increase under the occupational-specific dispensation. There has consequently been an upward adjustment in the salaries of social workers.

†I have to congratulate the hon member for Reservoir Hills because I have gathered from the local newspapers I have read that he will be the DP spokesman on National Health and Population Development. I wish him luck! [Interjections.] I think it is going to be wonderful. It is going to be a pleasure.

The hon member said some important things today namely that lay workers are important. I entirely agree with him. We, therefore, have the auxiliary workers here. It is quite true that the Salvation Army and others are doing a very good job, but there are certain aspects of social work which must be done by the professionals. I can name adoption as one example. I am sure the hon member will agree with me.

I also agree with the hon member in that we should make more bursaries available to students and this will happen as a result of better salaries.

*The hon member for Upington was brief and to the point, as always. He supports the legislation and I thank him for it.

I think that the legislation we have just disposed of is going to mean a great deal to an important profession in South Africa, ie that of social workers.

Order! My attention has been drawn to the fact that there is not a quorum present in the House of Representatives, and the decision of the Question shall therefore be postponed.

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

Mr Speaker, this House approved a similar motion on Tuesday, 11 April 1989, to facilitate the sitting of the House of Delegates at 10h30 on Wednesday, 12 April, to debate a motion moved by the hon member for Umzinto. However the hon member withdrew his motion a day before.

The hon member for Havenside has given notice of a similar motion, in that the subject remains the same, which he intends moving on Tuesday, 18 April 1989. A sitting of the House is requested at 10h30 on Tuesday, 18 April 1989, to consider this particular motion.

Mr Speaker, the sitting proposed for tomorrow revolves exclusively around the chairmanship of this House. The chairmanship of the House of Delegates seems to have become a pebble in the shoe of this particular House.

Whilst notice has been given on the Order Paper that several joint committees are scheduled to sit tomorrow, the House of Delegates, which time and again has been saying that it does not want to perpetuate the own affairs concept, now sees fit to arrange that the House sit in the morning at a time when Parliament is scheduled to sit at 14h15. They are doing this exclusively to satisfy certain political aims and aspirations of certain individuals.

If one is sincere about this, I think somebody ought to calculate how much it will cost this particular Chamber to sit at that time tomorrow. One thinks of the Hansard personnel, the service officers and everybody involved.

They are employed to work in the House.

They are employed, but we have no right to waste taxpayers’ money. Parliament is scheduled to sit tomorrow at 14h15. We are now flouting the rules and making it inconvenient for hon members of Parliament who are supposed to represent and be answerable to their constituencies. They now have to come here and consider an event which has nothing to do with their respective constituencies. It has everything to do with selfish, personal political gain. I do not see any reason why this side of the House should support that motion.

You are no politician!

The hon member responded by way of an interjection. It seems that all I have said to that hon member has gone in one ear and out the other. However, knowing hon members on that side of the House, and having consideration for what is between their ears, I have no problem with that interjection.

Mr Speaker, for a considerable time hon members in this House have been talking about dignity and decorum. The person who has spoken most eloquently about the need for dignity in this House, has been the hon member for Glenview who is now the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It is essential that the dignity which was lost in this House, be restored. I, for one, fervently hoped that as a result of certain developments, the position in this House would change. Regrettably, it has not changed.

It seems that those who are now in the majority party—some of whom have belonged to the majority party before—have not changed character at all. Others who opposed the conduct of the previous majority party have made it the behaviour of the new majority party.

What is the purpose of having a special meeting of the House? Normally a special meeting of the House is held when there is a matter of national importance, when there is a matter of such importance that it cannot possibly be postponed or when the subject matter cannot be debated during normal business hours. However, this is not a matter of national importance. All that the majority party is seeking to do, is to pay a personal debt to an individual who enabled them to become the majority party. It is as sordid as that. It is as sad as that.

I invited the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to give me the assurance, either privately or across the floor of the House, that that was not the motive and that no promise had ever been made to the hon member for Laudium that if he joined Solidarity he would be given …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I respectfully submit that the statements being made by the hon member are far beyond the ambit of the motion.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed.

I invited the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to give me that asssurance. He has not given me that assurance and I truly believe that he will not do so because he cannot. I know the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will never tell me a lie. He will never look me in the eye and tell me a lie. Therefore he cannot give that assurance. [Interjections.]

I am genuinely sad and upset. I expected more from the present hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I do not want to say any more. I oppose this particular motion.

Mr Speaker, I agree very much with the hon member for Lenasia Central and the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

It would seem that this House is afflicted with May madness. Every year in the month of May something happens to hon members of this House.

It is only April! [Interjections.]

While normal people outside this House get ’flu or a cold, hon members of this House seem to get some affliction. In 1987, in the Marks Building, certain hon members from that side of the House walked across to this side.

Somebody held your hand! [Interjections.]

In May 1988 a cabal was formed. I was not around when the cabal was formed. This year, again in May, certain hon members start walking across to the other side. [Interjections.]

I suggest that hon members of this House be given a vaccine some time early in January to prevent this affliction.

Order! Can the hon member just assist me because I have to decide whether the use of the word “cabal” is parliamentary or not. [Interjections.] Is it an organisation or an expression? Could the hon member assist me?

It is a secret political organisation. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I listened very attentively to some of the statements being made, but I think hon members on the other side who are trying to cast aspersions on hon members on this side are in fact guilty of that of which they are accusing others.

To begin with, I would like to submit that it was not this side of the House that engaged in delaying tactics last week. In fact, had the hon member carried on with his motion there might have been no need for that sitting. Therefore, as regards this whole argument about the wasting of the taxpayer’s money and people’s time and so on, who has indulged in petty manoeuvring? It has been hon members from the other side of the House and indeed the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition. It makes me feel a little sad that an office-bearer of Parliament would engage in that kind of nonsense.

That is politics!

No, it is not!

It was a political tactic!

He gave us an undertaking that he was going to debate the issue. In fact, he asked for times to be arranged. We did all that and, in spite of having made all those arrangements he decided, for no rhyme or reason, that he would withdraw his motion. Who is wasting time now? [Interjections.]

The other aspect I want to talk about is that last week so much was said about fasting and that if the sitting had been last Monday it would have been at the time of iftar—that is when one breaks fast—therefore it was not prudent to sit. To accommodate that situation we from this side of the House, even as office-bearers, co-operated and moved the time of sitting. However, who suggested this particular time today? It is because of the playing of games by hon members on the other side that we have to sit today. What happened to the argument about iftar, and so on?

[Inaudible.]

They are making a mockery of religion here in this Chamber.

That is exactly what you are doing!

Another aspect I want to mention, is that the hon member referred to the question of joint committees. It seems to me that some hon members believe their parliamentary duties only start at 14h15 in the afternoon. I would like to submit to them that their parliamentary duties start early in the morning every day if they are representing their constituents.

Mr Speaker …

I am not prepared to take a question.

Order! The hon member must give me the opportunity to find out whether the hon member wants to ask a question or take a point of order.

Mr Speaker, may I ask a question?

Order! The hon member is not prepared to take a question.

So I understand, Mr Speaker.

Order! It is not for any hon member to confirm Mr Speaker’s decision in this case. The hon member may proceed.

The other question is the question of time, as I was saying. Parliamentary duty starts in the morning. Whether we are in standing committees or in Parliament, we are performing our function and duties. If one looks at the privileges of Parliament, and at what would constitute non-attendance in respect of either of these two duties, one sees that if one has attended one of these sessions, one is considered to have performed one’s parliamentary duty.

The other aspect is the question of Hansard. I think that the hon member ought to understand what the duties and functions of the Hansard staff are. I do not think that that in itself is an argument.

As regards the other issue raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, namely that we had given assurances—that certain assurances had been given to members—I want to state quite categorically, as Chief Whip of my party, and being close to the leader of my party, that we have not engaged in any assurances or horsetrading, as is being made out. The question is just that when certain people do not wish to carry out their responsibilities in terms of parliamentary convention, it is unfortunate that we are brought to a state of having to force people to respect what is basically parliamentary tradition and conventions. Parliamentary tradition and conventions require that when people reach a certain stage, they have to recognise that they do not enjoy majority support. This motion is designed to establish whether or not the incumbent in that position enjoys or does not enjoy majority support. That is basically what the argument is all about. Let us settle that once and for all rather than have speculation and bring further discredit to this particular House.