Mr Chairman, unfortunately, owing to my absence from this Chamber yesterday while I was attending a meeting of another extended public committee, I am unable to react to previous speakers.

Mr Chairman, I wish to record our recognition of the hon the Minister’s efforts and those of his hon Deputy Minister and his officials in the handling and the administration of a very sensitive department. Whilst recognising the efforts and not denying the sincerity of all who are responsible for the administration and implementation of departmental policy, which, of course, is Government policy, we wish to record our protest at the continued exclusion of the majority of South Africans from this Parliament and at their affairs being administered by people not elected, delegated or appointed by them.

I hasten to emphasise that this is not a contradiction and that it is not intended to reflect on the ability of the hon the Minister and his department. In the absence of the ideal situation we concede that an excellent job is being done, and we have to express our confidence in the ministerial duo concerned with this department.

Hon members have, I am sure, heard of and know what growing pains are, but how many of us can really claim to know and identify with development pains? The sorrow, the resentment, the expectations and the frustrations of the residents of a developing country cannot be imagined, more especially if one is not there by choice. The national states or Bantustans, as they were referred to when the concept of independent Black homelands was first conceived, have not developed as envisaged—for various reasons. The political awareness which now exists was not anticipated then, and of course there is always also the money factor— rand and cents.

The South African Development Trust Corporation is to be complimented on its involvement in and its contribution to the upliftment of the standards, values and productivity of these developing nations. The STK’s recognition of agriculture as an area in which continued assistance and advice is rendered is commendable, and so too is the STK’s willingness to plan and assist in the operation of business ventures.

More important than the profits accruing from business ventures, is the creation of job opportunities. Not much has been heard of the Rust de Winter area and land incorporated into Kwa-Ndebele. We wonder whether the land has been utilised as intended and whether the decision to incorporate this area has been vindicated. We would also like the hon the Minister to tell us the number of persons employed by the STK, how many persons of colour are employed by the STK and in what capacities they are employed by the STK.

The photograph that appears in the report on the STK depicts all the directors and top management members as being White. The question I would like to pose is whether there are any plans to introduce persons of colour to this level in the STK, obviously on merit, and, if so, when it is going to happen.

Consolidation through incorporation, or as some people call it fragmentation of land, as negotiated and promised poses a problem for us. Many prominent Black leaders oppose further consolidation. This places us as parliamentarians in a difficult situation since the affected people are not represented here in Parliament. No amount of consultations, no amount of interviews or evidence before committees can offset or compensate for the absence from Parliament of these people.

Yet, on the other hand—and this is why I say it is a problem—there are those who as representatives of their people are demanding the fulfilment of promises made in respect of certain areas of land. The contention is that they know what is best for their people, and we cannot deny that. I am sure the hon the Minister will go along with that argument in that the communities themselves know what they want and they ask legitimately for what they require. Then I would say, let us bring these people to Parliament to co-legislate with us.

Coming back to the problem of the need to fulfil promises, we need to remember too that these states do exist and they do have needs. They have their needs and they exist for the reason that they are creations of this NP Government, and if viability depends on the acquisition of more land, do we have the right to deny them their request? No, I do not believe we have that right. We cannot deny them their request for land. These are the two aspects I believe have to be considered carefully before decisions are arrived at.

In the final analysis we need to remember that no matter what the mineral resources and land potential of a country are, it is the human resources that determine the success and/or failure of a country. Recognition of the individuality and dignity of people is paramount and will dictate the fortunes of a country. To realise its true potential a country needs to make available to its people opportunities for upward mobility in all spheres, with the retention of dignity and self-respect. South Africa owes it to these states to render all the assistance possible to develop as equals who will ultimately be called upon to play a role in the quest for peace in Southern Africa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon members who referred to the retirement of the Director-General, and as chairman of the joint committee I want to express our gratitude and appreciation to him, on behalf of the committee, for his very competent assistance over the years and wish him everything of the best on his retirement.

Efforts have been made, at every possible opportunity, to accuse the hon the Minister of not running his department satisfactorily; in this debate there have again been repeated calls for the hon the Minister’s resignation. The hon members for Potgietersrus, Pietersburg, Johannesburg North and Cape Town Gardens all called for his resignation. We on this side of the House want to say there is nothing that could be further from the truth than the accusation that this hon Minister has not performed satisfactorily in this post. I want to say that if there is one person in this Parliament who does not have skeletons in the cupboard, it is this hon Minister. [Interjections.] He is an honourable man who came to this Parliament as a Cabinet Minister from the academic world, via his position as Administrator-General in South West Africa. He is someone who has the respect and appreciation of all who are fair-minded in their judgements. [Interjections.]

The incessant attacks compel one to address the question of corruption and maladministration. The evidence I want to submit this afternoon comes from a no lesser source than the Eastern Province Herald of 22 February 1989. I quote:

Which party’s leader is that?

They state further:

What kind of passes? [Interjections.]

They also say:

Now I shall quote something to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who is making such a noise. They say:

†This is for that hon member’s information.[Interjections.] I quote further:

That is a quote from the Eastern Province Herald, the newspaper in the area where the hon member comes from.

Who wrote that? What date?

What date?

Open your ears! I said 22 February 1989.

*I have another argument from Business Day of 3 March 1989, which reads:

This is the view of newspapers that are not supporters of the NP. The point I therefore want to make, with this argument, is that the question is not whether corruption or maladministration has taken place, because as long as there are sinners, corruption and maladministration will rear their head, but the question is rather: What is done once that corruption and maladministration have been identified? That is the question, and we on this side of the House want to state unequivocally that we are completely satisfied that everything possible is being done to correct any maladministration in the department.

Without fear or favour the P W Botha Government did not hesitate when it came to taking immediate and drastic action and allowing the laws of the land to run their course in all cases in which such practices were identified. After all, it was the P W Botha Government which introduced the legislation for the Advocate-General to investigate any malpractices and, if necessary, to refer them to the Attorney-General. However, we want to warn against a prosecution mania in South Africa.

I now want to deal with the holier-than-thou attitude of the CP, and specifically that of the hon member for Pietersburg.

I should also like to deal with him. A newspaper report about a speech made by the hon member of the CP reads:

Listen specifically to the last part of the sentence.

Mr Chairman …

I am not going to answer any questions now. I only have five minutes at my disposal.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is not discussing this Vote.

Order! I shall listen to what the hon member has to say. At the moment I cannot tell whether he is or not. The hon member may proceed.

You see, Sir, those hon members are so sensitive about these matters, because they want to drag people’s names through the mud, but I am not yet finished with them. They must just listen for a moment. Dr Treurnicht goes on to say:

Those hon members put up the following disgusting poster: Du Plessis, De Pontes, De Beer, De Next.” I want to tell those hon members that they have a very short memory. I should like them to add to that poster “De Past.” I want to present a motion concerning the holier-than-thou attitude of those hon members. It is a motion that was announced in the NP caucus, unanimously adopted by the NP caucus and moved by the hon the leader of the CP. It reads:

Hon members must listen carefully to the words. I think Mr Justice James could not have used stronger words in the case of Rajbansi. I quote further—

Order! I think the hon member is now moving a bit too far from the Vote. The hon member will have to move closer to a discussion of the Vote.

Sir, accusations have been made against this hon Minister and there have been requests for his resignation, and one speaker after another has been permitted to do so. All I want to say is that we should be frank with one another, because people in glass houses should not throw stones. That is the point I want to make—may I please complete this quotation?

Order! Dr Mulder and the caucus have nothing to do with the argument here. I am very sorry.

Let us take another example. The CP is now arguing that Government funds, obtained from the taxpayer, are subject to maladministration and that there is no control over them.

I now want to draw a comparison. It is true that a political party is an organisation that takes money from the public. If we are talking about accountable officers in the Government or in a political party, let me ask the hon member for Pietersburg who the accountable officer is in respect of the R31 000 that was stolen from the coffers of the CP.

Order! The hon member is now moving very far from the Vote. He must get back to the subject under discussion.

Sir, I should merely like to say that the comparisons hon members have drawn to prove that this hon Minister must resign, and the examples furnished to indicate what has taken place from time to time—there are, inter alia, the Dugdale case in Britain, the Minister of Defence in Japan and the resignation of Lord Carrington—are all comparisons that do not apply to this situation. No precedent has been created with regard to the resignation of a Minister who is the political head of a department if there is maladministration on the part of officials of his department.

I want to refer hon members to an article which they can read in the Sunday Star of 19 March 1989. This proves that no comparison can be drawn between the examples of resignations which they gave and the resignation of the hon the Minister, which they are now demanding. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I will not refer to the hon member for Turffontein. I mentioned the subject yesterday and asked the hon the Minister to explain what he was doing. I hope he will explain during the course of his reply.

I want to talk about the Government’s current practice of forced removals and to refer to Braklaagte, an area to the north of Zeerust where approximately 9 000 individuals belonging to the Bahurutse ba Sebogodi tribe live in an old and established village nestling in the Marico hills. It was bought in 1907 and has been the home of the 9 000 individuals ever since.

I have visited Braklaagte and can testify to the atmosphere of rural tranquillity which pervades the area, but the peace in the village has been threatened many times by the Government in their attempts to remove them from the area and to control the people. Many successive Governments have tried this. The community was first threatened with removal as far back as 1938. A headman and 40 families were apparently forcibly removed in an attempt to diminish the growing number of Black people resident in the area. The attempt was resisted by the community and the outbreak of the Second World War prevented the implementation of the removal.

Twenty years later, at the height of the Government’s attempts to implement the unpopular Black Authorities Act and to force African women to carry passes, Braklaagte was again threatened with removal. John Sebogodi was imprisoned in an attempt to break the resistance to removal and Braklaagte was swept into the upheaval which accompanied the resistance to the concept of women being forced to carry passes.

When Adam Moila, the popularly recognised chief of the district, was deposed and Lucas Mangope imposed in his place, resistance flared up into violent confrontation. Passes were burned, houses were attacked and men and women were arrested and charged. Once again, the resistance of the Braklaagte community and the politically volatile situation in the Marico area meant that removal plans were left in abeyance.

Over the next 20 years, the Government moved ahead with its plans to entrench apartheid structures in the rural areas. Lucas Mangope became Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana, and when Bophuthatswana became independent in 1976 Braklaagte and the neighbouring farm of Leeuw-fontein were left outside of Bophuthatswana because of their situation in the White corridor of farms in that area.

Many further attempts were made to incorporate Braklaagte into Bophuthatswana. The Commission for Co-operation and Development heard evidence and in the early and middle 1980s discussed the future of land in the Marico Corridor on a number of occasions. The community of Braklaagte was apparently not aware of the deliberations concerning its fate and consequently did not give evidence to the commission.

The commission eventually came to the decision that farms including Braklaagte and Leeuwfon-tein should be added to Bophuthatswana. White farmers would be bought out and Black-owned land would be incorporated. I am advised that the first the Braklaagte community heard of these developments was in July 1986, when the decision was presented to the community as a fait accompli by some White owners and officials.

The community responded with anger and a tribal meeting was called to discuss the crisis. The overwhelming feeling at the meeting was that incorporation should be rejected and that the Government should be advised of this decision. Nearly 3 000 adults signed a petition rejecting incorporation and requesting to remain under central Government jurisdiction. Concern was expressed at the loss of South African citizenship which would occur when they were incorporated into Bophuthatswana. The Government ignored the concerns of the community, however, and forged ahead with its plans to incorporate the area into Bophuthatswana and this was brought about despite court action at the end of 1988.

The major problem concerns the question of South African citizenship. The tribe fears that its children will be born as citizens of Bophuthatswana and will not be able to have rights to live and work in South Africa. In addition, I am aware that the Bophuthatswana government has taken an extremely hostile attitude towards the citizens of Braklaagte who opt for the restoration of their South African citizenship.

There are no provisions for dual citizenship in Bophuthatswana. People who opt for South African citizenship are regarded as aliens and could experience severe discrimination. This has practical implications which could severely affect the access to resources and the quality of life of Braklaagte residents.

Despite the pleas of and legal action by the Braklaagte community, the Government persisted with incorporation into Bophuthatswana. A great deal of violence ensued and unhappiness on an unprecedented scale followed. Our Government simply does not care. They have decided, and so be it. They claim to have abandoned their policy of forced removals. This is untrue as they now have a policy of forced boundary changes.

This applies not only to Braklaagte but to many other areas. One can mention the plight of the people of Peelton and Potsdam who are now citizens of Ciskei and suffer the same fate as the people of Braklaagte.

As I have mentioned, I have been to Braklaagte and have spoken to the leaders of the community. They still have faith in the Government and in the law. Alas, their faith is misplaced as the Government no longer forces the people to move from their property but simply moves the boundaries and to blazes with the consequences!

Mr Chairman, I am not going to follow on the hon member for Johannesburg North since I am quite certain that the hon the Minister will deal with him adequately. However, I shall prove in my address that he is wrong when he says that this Government does not care.

Many hon members in this Chamber have only a scanty knowledge of the tremendous work which is actually accomplished by the Department of Development Aid. We very often only pay lip service in this House and perhaps only take the trouble of paging through the annual report. However, do we really know what the Department of Development Aid is actually achieving in its fields of activity and what is happening on the ground?

The department has a budget of R4,45 billion for the 1989/90 financial year. We know that it is responsible for budgetary aid to the self-governing states and to trust areas; that the department renders administrative and technical assistance; that such assistance includes manpower assistance, training and advice on planning; and that the department arranges the purchase and administration of land and coordinates development aid.

There is, however, another service that the department offers which is of immense value to members of Parliament and which, I am sad to say, many MPs have not taken full advantage of. I refer to the educational tours which this department offers to every member of Parliament every year.

If there is one way in which a member of Parliament can gain a wealth of information and a practical knowledge of what the Department of Development Aid is actually achieving to uplift the lot of the underprivileged in this country, it is for that member to join such a tour.

Last November I was privileged to accompany such a tour to the trust areas of Natal and KwaZulu. I wish to give colleagues a resume of that tour in order to highlight some of the projects undertaken by the Government and this department in that part of the country.

On the first day, after an extensive tour of both low and high cost housing developments and upgrading of squatter areas at Folweni, Umlazi, Ntuzuma and Inanda outside of Durban, the tour travelled to the gigantic housing projects at Edendale outside Pietermaritzburg. While the department there has provided the land and the basic network of roads, private developers are proceeding with the provision of internal roads, stormwater drainage, sewer, water and power services. The erection of dwellings ranging from two to four bedroomed houses with a wide range of finishes is taking place rapidly. Literally thousands of erven are involved. The development is well-planned and supervised by the Department of Development Aid, and is addressing what is in fact a critical housing shortage in the area.

The tour then visited the Vulindlela Fountain Protection Project. Standing high up at the head of this valley was an unforgettable experience. Here local indunas and local residents, working with the authorities, identified certain fountains, built protective filters around their source, laid down pipes and inexpensive but effective reservoirs and a series of water points in the valley. The result—a completely hygienic cost-effective domestic water supply for the whole valley servicing both man and beast.

The second day began with a visit to the Thutu-kane Sugar Project in KwaZulu. This farming operation was commenced by Mrs Cecilia Kuzwayo, the local community leader who met the tour party. She had proved that Zulu farmers could successfully produce sugar cane. Today some 2 500 Zulu growers, each with his own holding of approximately two hectares, supply Glendale Sugar Mill with something like 150 000 tons of cane annually.

The result—employment for 350 cane-cutters, and 600 field-workers, and prosperity in the community which now boasts its own new school and community hall with plans for a clinic and a supermarket complex in the near future. In all, the project supports some 25 000 people.

The tour then proceeded to the Isithebe industrial area in KwaZulu. Here the KwaZulu Finance and Investment Corporation Ltd, KFC, has played a major role. Established in 1970, Isithebe is the most successful industrial growth point away from any major metropole in South Africa. More than 150 companies are in production here on 414 hectares of modern industrial estate. It is serviced by rail, by the SATS and even a 990 m tarred airstrip. There are 21 000 KwaZulu citizens employed at Isithebe, providing food and shelter for another 140 000 Zulus in the area. Many of the big names in industry feature there and the standard of technology is extremely high.

The tour continued on to the 800-bed Ngwe-lezana hospital administered by the KwaZulu department of health. It provides the most modern health care to approximately 40 000 people. It also services 14 clinics, two smaller hospitals and 40 visiting points with mobile clinics. The workforce consists of 40 doctors, 750 nurses and 520 administrative staff.

The final call of the day was the Owen Sithole College of Agriculture established in 1968 by the department. It consists of 672 hectares, including 110 hectares of game park. There are at present 168 students there, some from as far afield as Malawi. During this year it will become part of the Mangosuthu Technikon. Since its inception 729 students have graduated from this college: 402 in general agriculture, 128 in animal health, 121 in nature conservation and 78 in home economics. The principal, Mr Angelicus Zulu is an outstanding man, devoted to his task and extremely well-qualified.

The final day of the tour saw us pass the huge Jozini Dam, built to supply irrigation water for the vast Makatini Flats. After an orientation lecture from the Chief Director of Agriculture, Department of Development Aid, Mr Gawie Swanepoel, we were taken on a tour of the Makatini Flats Project. It is a vast expanse of land, some 600 000 hectares in extent of which 60 000 hectares are irrigable. The Jozini Dam will provide approximately 25 000 hectares with water. The climate is tropical; the rainfall 633mm per annum. The project is administered by the SA Development Trust Corporation as agents for the department.

Production at the moment includes cotton, dry beans, maize, dry peas and rice. Some 1 450 Zulu farmers are already operating on their own lands. Whereas before the project was started poverty and illiteracy abounded, now work has been created for thousands of people, with education, health, wealth and a sense of pride established. In 1987 alone 570 permanent jobs and 1 200 temporary jobs were created in agriculture there.

At the animal husbandry farm the native Nguni beast, hardy and resistant to heat, has been crossed with a Jersey strain to establish a new stock which produces both milk and meat.

It was a privilege to have taken part in this tour and I sincerely recommend it to my fellow colleagues in this House.

We frequently hear from opposition benches unjustified general criticisms levelled against the Department of Development Aid, particularly in regard to the alleged wastage of funds in the homelands. That this has occurred in the past is not denied but the wastages are infinitesimal when compared to the amount of money spent beneficially by the department. To all those who take the trouble to study the facts, the criticisms in fact bring a sense of indignation.

The real truth is that the task of uplifting and upgrading our fellow Third World component in South Africa is immense. However, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, his dedicated senior staff, his personnel in general and his technical staff in the field deserve nothing but the highest accolades for making one of the greatest humanitarian contributions through this department to the stability and the future of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member for King William’s Town, who has just spoken, for the resume he gave of how Black farmers, especially in the Natal region, are progressing.

However, having said that, I think that he has given us the perfect picture of how Black people can farm. What is wrong then with giving them some land within South Africa? Let them start here. If they can farm well in KwaZulu, then they can farm well in King William’s Town as well. I would like the hon member for King William’s Town to put his money where his mouth is and recommend to the relevant departments that they should also give farms to Black people within South Africa, as they call it, so that the Black people may farm there.

As we sit in this Parliament today we find once again that the NP’s attempt at social engineering is taking its toll in the Eastern Cape. We heard earlier this afternoon from the hon member for Johannesburg North what is happening in Brak-laagte. He also alluded to the situation at Potsdam.

The NP’s attempts to determine where people should live and whether Black people should have citizenship is to my mind once again taking its toll. Already the goings-on in the Border Corridor have been the subject of communications to foreign embassies. South Africa, for so long the polecat of the world, faces further condemnation and scorn and, if the situation gets totally out of hand, further sanctions. Unfortunately the Department of Development Aid is once again at the centre of a controversy.

*We who live so self-indulgently and sit on the green benches of this Parliament so calmly, taking decisions on other people’s lives, will have to wake up and do something positive to improve the living conditions of the Blacks, particularly those in the Eastern Cape.

†During the past weeks a community of hundreds of surplus people, in an act of human desperation rather than one of defiance or confrontation, voluntarily vacated their homes and walked into South Africa, as it were. These people have one great desire. They believe that they are South Africans and they want to live in South Africa. They left their meagre but comfortable surroundings to live in plastic tents, braving both the cold and the wet.

The people were formerly removed to the so-called Potsdam area in the Ciskei and for more than six years they have fought a lonely battle to be incorporated into South Africa. The community has already twice fled from the Ciskei. The residents claim that most of them lived on the South African side of the border on the Ciskei’s Day of Independence. They claimed in a legal dispute that they were forcibly removed to Potsdam in the Ciskei in June 1983.

In January this year the Supreme Court, in a test case brought by three of the residents, confirmed their right to permanent residence in South Africa without any permit or exemption. The hope gained from the court case was of course not to last long within the South African situation, for last month the South African Government announced its intention to appeal against the Supreme Court ruling, a decision which could delay the settlement of the community situation by up to two years. We must think what we are doing to such communities.

As I have said, the residents, in an act of desperation, took up their belongings and walked into South Africa. In fact they only walked home. They have settled on land near Mount Rush belonging to the Department of Development Aid. Already appeals have been made to the United States of America, the British, Canadian and the Spanish governments— the lastmentioned being the chairperson of the European Economic Community—to urge the South African Government to negotiate rather than to force a solution and to see to the needs of this community.

Order! I understand from the hon member that this matter is the subject of appeal, which makes it sub judice. The hon member should bear that in mind.

Yes, Mr Chairman, I will not refer to it as such. I will only refer to the person. On behalf of my party, the LP, I wish to repeat a request to the hon the Minister and the Government. Let us stop hurting people. Let us treat everyone equally regardless of the colour of their skin. Let us treat everyone equally regardless of whether they have a vote in this Parliament or not. For our children’s sake let us treat our fellow human beings as equals. It is strange that while South African Whites have left the country in large numbers over the past few years here we have a group of people who only have one great desire which is to be South African and to be treated as such. They cannot help it that they are poor. They cannot help it that they are Black and the majority party in this Government is White.

When the hon the Minister sends officials to negotiate with residents who live in hollowed-out bushes with plastic sheeting as a roof he should remember that they are rural people and should not bully them. The hon the Minister should not allow them to be intimidated. Even if departmental officials urge him to get tough the hon the Minister should remember that his actions will stretch further than the forlorn group huddled on that farm. The hon the Minister’s actions will affect all of us in South Africa.

*Has the hon the Minister ever heard the intense sadness in people’s voices when they stand in a circle, clapping their hands, slowly singing in soft, monotonous voices, as they sang there “In ons harte seer, is God met ons”? The hon the Minister and the department are deeply entrenched in the problems of the so-called Border Corridor. Our fervent prayer is that the negotiations will lead to peace rather than unrest, that the hon the Minister’s actions will join people together rather than divide them, and that in the negotiations with Blacks in general, people will act in such a way that revolution will not be our fate. I earnestly hope that we in this beautiful country of ours will never have to experience Totius’s words, where he wrote, and hon members know the words:

Mr Chairman, I should like in the first place to express good wishes to Mr Gilles van de Wall, the retiring Director-General, and his family. Mr Van de Wall is a good person who has given excellent service, worked with dedication and done an enormous amount for South Africa. In the same way there are many officials, the vast majority of officials in that department, who are incorruptible people and furnish dedicated service.

In the second place, I want to tell the hon member for Turffontein—he did not get to the Vote after all—in connection with the motion which he said my leader had introduced at the NP caucus, that I would appreciate it highly if he would let us have a copy of this motion. I assume it is signed, and I want to tell the hon member that I cannot call such a situation to mind at all in which my leader ever used the language which the hon member read aloud there. We should very much like to have a copy of it.

As regards the Vote, it has increased by 25% to top the R5 billion mark. This is a huge amount but I want to say that the CP has no objection whatsoever to an appropriation of this nature for this specific purpose and that it has grown to this extent.

I also note in the Vote that there is an item which provides for project assistance. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on this. Even if it is not a large sum, I think the hon the Minister is on the right road. The hon the Minister will recall that the CP appealed for this a year or two ago. It is a good thing that the hon the Minister has listened to good advice and that he has started along the right road in doing this. [Interjections.]

I said that we had no objection to this Vote and its extent. We do object, however, to the fact that the money to be voted here could be involved in corruption, that squandering could take place and the wrong norms be applied. We shall not countenance this. We do not wish it to be applied for those purposes.

I want to ask the hon the Minister—I think he owes this to his department and South Africa— to tell us exactly how many inquiries into irregularities are in progress at this moment in his department.

It is true that we told the hon the Minister a few years ago that irregularities were taking place at Botshabelo. The hon the Minister was not inclined to believe this but the fact is that that matter has gone further. It is in the hands of the police now. We have no idea how the inquiry is progressing; the public is not informed. This leaves the activities of the department under a cloud. Botshabelo is not the only place where irregularities take place. This cloud which is associated with the department actively erodes the effectiveness of the functioning of the department and it also damages the concept of the development of states for different peoples. It is used in particular by people who are hostile towards this concept to denigrate the concept of states for peoples.

Yesterday the hon the Minister did not reply effectively. He gave no replies to the questions which the hon member for Potgietersrus put. He evaded them. That report did not indicate either that the hon the Minister had acted effectively when he became aware of certain irregularities in his other department. This is why I want to ask the hon the Minister to tell us on this occasion what he is doing. I also want to ask whether the lack of effective and rapid action is aimed at furnishing the enemies of this concept with an opportunity to denigrate or destroy it.

It is a pity that there is a decrease in the contribution of the people of the self-governing states. Their own contribution to their budget declined on average from 32% to 20%. It is a great pity that this is the case. There was a time when their own contributions showed sturdy growth and that was obviously the right thing.

This state of affairs indicates that those funds which are used and which are voted by this Parliament do not succeed entirely in promoting self-development and independence. For this reason I think the hon the Minister owes it to us to tell us what he is doing.

The CP have no doubt that very much more could be achieved with the same amount than is actually achieved if it were applied effectively, the correct norms were laid down and it were spent in such a way that it enabled the people to whom it went to develop on their own and to increase their own contributions.

As regards the question of Rust de Winter, I want to tell the hon the Minister that, in the first place no satisfactory explanation has been given up to today regarding the decision to buy out Rust de Winter, on how that decision was reached. Neither has any satisfactory explanation been given as to exactly why that specific land was applied for that purpose. Questions have been evaded continually. Now we are at the stage in which the land is being bought up— the property of some owners has already been bought up and the rest still has to be bought up. The fact that land has been bought up has an enormous effect on land prices in the vicinity. Land prices have soared in the adjacent area which is situated near Pretoria and is the Mecca of the part-time farmer.

When land is bought up in an area, the people concerned do not settle in even distribution throughout South Africa. Most people settle nearby again. As regards people’s property which is still to be bought up, is the hon the Minister going to take these events in the adjacent area into account when those people’s land is valued?

I shall furnish the hon the Minister with the names of five people whose land has already been bought up and I should like him to tell us frankly whether the valuations which were carried out there—in these five specific cases—were absolutely correct or that no mistakes crept in and whether those norms are also to be applied regarding the remaining farmers’ land, together with the fact that, owing to the buying up which has already taken place, land prices in that area have escalated. I want to tell the hon the Minister that this department which, I believe, deals with the most important matter in South Africa has been scaled down over the past few years.

In one respect it is probably the case that the department has been scaled down because certain of its responsibilities have been transferred to the governments of the self-governing states. This is laudable.

We have no objection to this at all; on the contrary, we are in favour of it.

The department has been scaled down for a second reason, however. This is in consequence of the Government’s political philosophy. This concept no longer altogether slots in with the Government’s political philosophy and this has been reflected in the structuring of Government mechanisms; this is the reason for the scaling down of this department. It is true that this department reached a peak in the sixties and seventies as far as its activities and results were concerned, as well as the realisation of objectives.

At that time there was great peace in South Africa and particularly in these specific states. Populations within those areas increased far more rapidly than the average population in South Africa. The people’s own contributions to the financing of those states increased rapidly. It is still the case today that riots and friction and problems which occur in South Africa do not occur at all in those self-governing states as well as in the independent states. They have peace there and the people experience the satisfaction of success and progress. Phenomenal progress is also being made in those states. The people’s own contributions to their own progress are far greater than they are elsewhere; this in spite of the fact that they are declining.

Another very important fact is that, while that department’s activities and the policy of separate development reached a peak in the sixties and seventies, South Africa’s economy reached the highest peak in the entire history of this country during those two decades as well. In those two decades the economy of our country developed enormously. If one were to draw a graph of the development of the national states and of the development of the economy of South Africa during those two decades, these two would be exactly parallel because, when the development of those states was promoted, South Africa’s economy also experienced maximum growth, there was peace and prosperity and the people in South Africa were satisfied. [Interjections.]

This is why I want to tell the hon the Minister that the Government is seeking the solution to South Africa’s problems in the wrong place. [Interjections.] It is seeking the solution to South Africa’s problems in the wrong place. This concept of the development of states for peoples is the only answer which can solve South Africa’s political problems—permanently and effectively.

No, you are dreaming! [Interjections.]

There is no other formula. This is why the Government is having so much trouble. [Interjections.] This is why it is struggling and casting about and why it cannot strike out firmly with a solution to these problems. [Interjections.] That is why I want to say that, when the CP gains the victory—and that victory is very close … [Interjections.] Yes, the hon the Minister will probably no longer be here then. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, as I am here now and as I have taken leave of Mr Van de Wall, I should not like the hon the Minister to accuse us of having been unfriendly toward him. I therefore want to tell him too that we are taking leave of him on this occasion because he will not be here again after the election. [Interjections.] Obviously I cannot say now, as in Mr Van de Wall’s case, that he accomplished a very brilliant task in South Africa. He did make an attempt but somewhere along the line he went off the rails and, when the CP comes to power, this concept will come into its own again. That day is very, very near. [Interjections.]

Then you will have to appoint me as your consultant! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, participating in this debate in this Committee this afternoon almost makes one feel like discussing what South Africa would look like under a CP regime, because I still have to go and tell my people in the Eastern Cape that according to CP policy there is no security and prospects for a White person to continue living in the Eastern Cape. [Interjections.]

Another thing we had to ascertain the other day was that the homeland for the Coloured people was in fact in the Western Cape. If we continue at that rate to identify areas, and we have to relocate people, I wonder where the CP is going to get the money from to relocate these people if they should come to power—they themselves say quite correctly, if they should come to power.

They are dreaming, man!

I agree with the hon the Minister.

I should also like to react to a remark made here by the hon member for Diamant when he referred to the fact that Blacks should be allowed to acquire land in the RSA, the so-called White RSA, and to do business for their own account. This is perhaps something which is attainable, but it cannot be made attainable on the one side only.

I want to say that I get starry-eyed when I look at certain agricultural potential in the Transkei north and south of Port St Johns. There are also wonderful opportunities in the Ciskei. I want to say that this Government has placed some of the best agricultural land in South Africa at the disposal of Black people. [Interjections.] I think we must accept these facts today and see what we should do with this potential.

That is in fact what this department is busy doing. I want to allege this afternoon that any country’s progress is very closely interwoven with its success in the agricultural sphere, because agriculture provides foodstuffs, fibres and raw materials for its people and for its factories. It can then in the second place be associated with an informal economy which can encourage and promote home and traditional industries. These can then be allowed to burgeon in a deregulated community. That is the point of departure for any nation. It is its foundation. That is why I think it is right that agriculture should be promoted to the utmost in any of these self-governing territories, on the one hand to provide subsistence and on the other hand to create job opportunities.

What has then been inhibiting this agricultural development over the years? In my opinion the traditional form of land tenure, the tribal system, the system in which one chief owns the land and then allocates it and in which large areas of agricultural land literally become built up, is truly one of the most inhibiting reasons for agricultural development which simply cannot get going. Secondly, as a result of concentration, there is an overutilisation of this natural resource, and thirdly there is a lack of capital.

If we then purchase land, as the Trust is doing, for agricultural development in self-governing territories, it is to my mind important that there should be a transfer phase in which the existing infrastructure should be maintained and the infrastructure should be improved for future agricultural development. We frequently find, and we experienced this again during the recent sitting of the Joint Committee on Finance, that complaints are made. Why is land not being transferred? What is being done with that land in the meantime? I want to demonstrate later that the STK and the department are very closely involved, not only with the maintenance of the infrastructure but also with the productivity, and that proper physical and socio-economic planning is taking place. The total resource is also being protected.

It is important to us that attention should be given to these points, but one cannot establish a person who has not had the necessary training on agricultural land either. Prospective farmers must be identified and there must be a gradual transfer, so that when this person takes over the land he will be able to utilise it to the full and so that it will provide him with a decent livelihood. That is why I think it is important for this department perhaps to consider a system of leasing with the option of buying, instead of making land directly available, precisely so as to identify and evaluate prospective farmers. If this person has completed his period of lease and has been successful, we know that he will also be able to derive the most benefit from ownership.

I should like to demonstrate here this afternoon, on the basis of three examples, that this department is really complying with these requirements. In the first place let me take Zebediela, which was taken over by the STK as long ago as 18 January 1975. At that stage it was handed over to the BIC—Bantu Investment Corporation— which subsequently became the STK. This is truly a farm which had a reasonably high potential and a good management, but it was completely converted into a unit with an even higher productivity and it is now ready to be handed over. This afternoon I invite Lebowa to avail itself of this opportunity and to accept the consolidation plans that are on the table.

This farm provides 3 000 people with job opportunities. During the past 12 years more than 300 000 citrus trees—in aggregate 60% of the total number of orchards—had been replaced with new trees. In other words, highly productive orchards have been established which have already resulted, over a period, in dividends to the amount of R19,8 million being paid. What is admirable is that the STK invested the funds it generated itself by way of profits they made in a storage shed, expansions to the refrigerating rooms, to replantations and to the installation of more irrigation facilities. These profits amounted to R17,7 million and this was in fact done to make this unit more self-sufficient.

Here we now have a unit which is ready to be transferred and it would be desirable for the Trust to sell it to Zebediela Citrus Limited. It will then have been compensated for the utilisation of its capital over the years. The entire project can then be privatised and the citizens of Lebowa can also receive a share in such an undertaking.

On numerous occasions we have heard criticism being levelled against highly productive units that were transferred, but I think we have a typical example here of something that was marvellously maintained and which is now ready to be taken over and utilised by the citizens of Lebowa.

This afternoon Rust de Winter was also discussed, but surely it is also necessary for us to give Kwandebele an opportunity to have a meaningful irrigation area. Rust de Winter comprises 34 300 hectares, of which 1 875 hectares are scheduled. In the meantime, since the STK began to take over, they have been leasing out that land. They are maintaining the infrastructure, they are maintaining productivity and they are doing the planning of the economic units so that when it is handed over to the citizens of KwaNdebele they can ensure that there are economic units. Once again it is desirable for ownership to be transferred in a responsible way and the administration must plan the financing in good time. This land must preferably be marketed at agricultural values. A price must be agreed upon which will be acceptable to the buyer and the transactions must be finalised by way either of a lease with an option to buy, or by way of a purchase agreement.

Finally I should like to refer to the Makatini Flats, to which the hon member for King William’s Town also referred. There is a tremendous potential there, because we can place approximately 25 000 hectares of land under irrigation, we can create 40 000 job opportunities and we can establish 2 500 independent farming units. What progress has the department made with this? What progress has the STK made with this? Already there are 302 units, which offer between 5 000 and 6 000 job opportunities. What I find to be very important, however, is that over and above the productivity that has been increased and maintained and the utilisation of the infrastructure, a model has been created for community services.

Here we see that over the years clinics have been established for these people at which health services are being provided, and in this way households are able to maintain a higher living standard. Housewives receive specific training in running their homes better. Day care of children whose parents are involved in the farming units is made available. Adults are being trained so that the people of these units can utilise their full potential. If my memory serves me correctly there are basically 10 Whites involved in that entire development project. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I must say that I like the enthusiasm of the hon member for Cradock. I want to say that I have listened with interest to most of the speeches made from Government benches during this debate. I believe that they have by and large been an improvement on those of previous years when we have discussed this Vote because there has been less arrogance, less commitment to dogma, and one has had the impression that at least some attempt is being made, albeit tentatively to look at the realities of the situation as it relates to our Black population.

Despite changes in Cabinet responsibility and the shrinking in many ways of the scope of this department, this hon Minister and his department still have an immense responsibility affecting the daily lives of Black people around the country. Their task is, the more one looks at it, a most daunting one indeed. It covers a vast sphere relating to the population explosion, tremendous housing needs, the need for job opportunities, health facilities and vast other areas relating to the quality of life of Black people in South Africa.

I believe that this hon Minister ought to be particularly well-equipped to face up to the realities of his and his department’s responsibilities. I think one of the first realities is that no matter what good and positive work is being done by his department, it can never be enough in itself and within the financial and budgetary constraints imposed upon it, to deal adequately with the enormous needs of the advancement of our Black population. As a result, the total interdependence between the geographic areas and the people concerned which fall under the jurisdiction of the hon the Minister, and the rest of South Africa, has to be emphasised again and again.

It is a reality that the Department of Development Aid cannot cope with the situation on its own. It is merely one of the agents of South Africa as a whole whose task it is to try to improve the quality of life of the people concerned.

I think another reality is that whatever the situation might be relating to the degree of autonomy of the so-called national states and to the degree of authority over the affairs of the underprivileged masses residing within those regions, they too cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of upliftment and advancement of the people on their own. They are in no way economically viable. They operate on limited budgets. In most cases they rely more on the hand-outs from the Republican Government than on the revenue which they can generate for themselves within their own regions. I would therefore warn strongly against the tendency to what I may term “pass the buck” to homeland governments in respect of the provision and operation of essential services in those regions, and the difficulties which arise because the services are deficient and inadequate. It is in most cases not practical for the national states to function on their limited budgets in order to provide proper services apart from factors such as the lack of trained personnel.

It also does bring the authority and integrity of those regional administrations into disrepute amongst the people whom they purport to serve because they bear the brunt of local and outside criticism when those services are inadequate.

In the end I believe the “buck” must stop with the Government of South Africa because it is after all the architect of the system, and the authority which has the ultimate control over the system. This is another important reality. The fact is that in most cases the national states’ governments have neither the money nor the trained personnel necessary to perform the functions which are entrusted to them.

I believe that these functions and these problems are the collective responsibility of the whole of South Africa and the Government is the authority which must attract criticism when they are not properly addressed.

This leads me to comment briefly on a speech made yesterday by the hon member for Umhla-tuzana—I believe it was a good and a realistic speech—in which he referred to the huge population growth in and around Durban and in the Inanda region in particular. The hon member referred to the millions of people moving towards Durban in search of food, job opportunities, housing, education and family life. He identified a major source of concern on a gigantic scale relating to this vast movement of population.

The question we must ask is how we are going to deal with it. We can call it urbanisation. If it is urbanisation, and it is, it is macro-urbanisation because of the vastness of the scale on which this population movement is taking place. We must ask ourselves also— the hon members on the Government side must ask themselves this— whether this problem can be coped with within the confines of an apartheid-ridden society.

If one looks at the enormity of the problem, including the costs involved in providing services to cope with the situation, can we deal with it on the basis that exists at the present time when, for example, there are White schools standing half empty and Black schools overflowing; when, in an apartheid-ridden society, there is rising Black unemployment while the South African economy stutters; and when, in an apartheid society, State finances are being wasted on a multiplicity of racially comprised own affairs departments and concepts instead of single ones? Can we afford that sort of activity when we look at the fact that in one city alone, there are millions of people who need to be coped with? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, a great deal of blame is being apportioned to the Government by the CP, because it is ostensibly doing nothing to combat and to counteract the trend of urbanisation in respect of the metropolitan areas. However, when one looks at the actions of the Department of Development Aid—in this regard, therefore, I am referring specifically to Black urbanisation—it is very clear that this statement is simply not true.

What is more, the CP themselves could make a contribution, if they wanted to help us, by way of investments in the self-governing territories in order to effect job creation, so that we would be able to retain more people there.

As a result of the development of self-governing territories and the creation of related industrial growth points within, adjacent to and in the vicinity of these areas, the SA Development Trust Corporation has, since as long ago as 1962, been engaged in the process of orderly settlement by way of township development in these areas. As a result of this process, 13 STK townships and 68 towns in self-governing territories have already been established.

When one also takes into account that the aforementioned towns already have an estimated total population of over 2 million, the important role which the STK is playing in orderly urbanisation away from the metropolitan areas, is clear. The principle which applies throughout with regard to township development, is that of orderly settlement near industrial growth points and other job opportunities.

Apart from the development of townships there are also a large number of settlements in rural areas of self-governing territories, as well as on STK land, which at present form part of agricultural and other developments and which could form the core of further urbanisation points.

When we look at the land involved in this action, it appears that 51 638,47 hectares are being utilised for the 68 towns in self-governing territories and 21 398,73 hectares for the 13 STK townships. In the 68 towns in self-governing territories, 319 953 stands have already been planned and surveyed, as have 80 294 stands in the 13 STK townships.

Since 1983, however, the STK has no longer been involved in the construction of houses, and it undertakes the establishment and development of townships, the planning and surveying of land, and the provision of services such as water, electricity, sanitation, streets and educational, health, sports, recreational and community facilities.

Up until 1983 a total of 154 152 houses were constructed by the STK and a great deal of success has already been achieved with the sale of these houses. A total of 107 971 houses, or 70% of them, have to date already been sold, which is indeed an achievement.

The activities of the STK are directed primarily at the provision of services to persons in the lower income group. On the other hand, development which meets the needs of the middle and higher income groups, is left to the private sector. Stands and undeveloped land are allocated to them for this purpose, upon which they themselves must provide an infrastructure and build houses. A total of 25 572 stands have already been awarded to 76 private developers for development purposes. The South African Housing Trust Limited is making a great contribution to the provision of housing and is involved in 1 975 housing units in trust townships and approximately 11 000 units in self-governing territories. The private sector deserves credit and gratitude for their exceptional contribution and enthusiasm.

Another aspect to which I should like to refer, is the report of the KwaZulu-Natal Planning Council dealing with urban development in the Durban, Pinetown and Pietermaritzburg areas. The purpose of this investigation was to investigate ways in which the quality of life of Blacks in KwaZulu-Natal could be improved. Further to the report, projects to the value of R1 123,955 million have been identified by the Government, and these will be implemented over a period of five years. The development entails the provision of serviced sites, the upgrading of existing services, the establishment and development of new township areas adjacent to existing townships, as well as sports facilities, schools, clinics and community halls. As a result of this, an additional 85 000 stands will be made available.

According to the latest analysis of the amounts that are needed for development, KwaZulu is responsible for R679,257 million, of which the Development Bank of Southern Africa will finance approximately R441,451 million by way of loans. In respect of trust townships outside KwaZulu the STK is responsible for R398,143 million, whilst the Natal Provincial Administration’s projects amount to R46,555 million. In order to make a start on the projects, the Government has made available an amount of R87,5 million for the 1989-90 financial year. This amount will be utilised mainly for urgent projects where the upgrading of existing services and community facilities is required. It will also make a great contribution towards the improvement of the quality of life of the inhabitants and the creation of a happy and satisfied community.

As has already been mentioned, the Government has since 1983 no longer been building houses and it decided as early as 1981 that greater emphasis should be placed on site-and-service schemes in conjunction with selfhelp building schemes. To this end, technical advisory centres exist and self-help building, which is subjected only to certain minimum standards, is being encouraged. It is therefore possible to erect low-cost traditional or conventional type houses in trust townships. Provision has hereby been made for all the various traditional building styles and for imaginative individual plans.

In order to promote self-help building activity, self-help building loans are awarded to a person who has a monthly income of less than R500. This loan amount is limited to a maximum of R5 000 per annum per borrower, and the loan period may not exceed 30 years. It is also limited exclusively to self-help building purposes. Borrowers are encouraged to supplement the loan amount from their own sources in order by so doing to establish larger and better accommodation.

If the role of family and friends is also taken into account in the building process, considerable savings are effected. The success of this scheme is apparent from the 14 396 self-help building loans that have already been granted. This scheme places virtually every family in a position to obtain a house of its own in accordance with its own needs and with what it can afford. Job opportunities are being created and, owing to the involvement of the community in one another’s common lot, an individual community culture is being created and promoted.

A great deal has already been done to publicize the self-help building scheme and to advertise the benefits which it entails. It is in everyone’s interests that we should continue with this in order to contribute to the establishment of a healthy, happy community among the lower income groups as well.

The Government and the Department of Development Aid, with its competent Minister, deserve the thanks and recognition of the entire country for the extremely important role which they have played and continue to play in the establishment of a better South Africa for all its inhabitants.

In conclusion, permit me to express a personal word of sincere gratitude and appreciation to Mr Gilles van de Wall for the valuable service he has rendered to the Department and the country over many years. I have had personal experience of his dedication over quite a number of years and I have been able to learn a great deal from him. Our good wishes go to him and Mrs Van de Wall on his retirement. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I gladly follow the hon member for North Rand and I wish to associate myself with the best wishes he conveyed to the Director-General of Development Aid. I know Mr Van de Wall as a man who is knowledgeable as far as his sphere of activities is concerned, and over the years he commanded only our respect.

Just as the hon member for North did, I want to mention that I took note of the report of the KwaZulu-Natal Planning Council and also want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department and wish them good luck on the road ahead with this gigantic task they are engaged in at present. Of course I was in the fortunate position at the end of last year, to be part of a parliamentary tour that travelled through the KwaZulu trust areas. That is why that report meant so much more to me.

I just want to mention to the hon members that this tour was very informative. It is a pity that I was the only member of the House of Representatives who went along on the tour, because one could only return a more mature person. The sad story of wronged people in South Africa was enacted in front of me, but I also saw the real efforts that are being made to ease the plight of these people—real efforts to make them feel that they are no longer strangers, but true citizens of South Africa.

The problem that struck me as being a serious one was the squatter problem. I am being honest with the hon members when I tell them that if I had visited this area sooner, I would certainly not have voted against the legislation on illegal squatting. [Interjections.] There exists great understanding and appreciation for the attempts being made to resolve the squatting problem. It has become clear that the need for settled and stable communities is a high priority in this department. What I noticed especially was the provision of sites for which the services range from rudimentary services with gravel roads, pit toilets, communal taps and high mast lighting in the streets, to complete services with water, electricity, flush toilets and tarred roads.

I really want to repeat that I want to congratulate this department, especially on the resettlement of the 1 300 families of the Inanda Dam area. These people lived under the most deplorable conditions and were relocated—and I just want to mention—voluntarily relocated to more acceptable areas after the flood damage. Therefore it is necessary, after this coming election, for the hon the Minister to take a close look at the composition of the Commission for Co-operation and Development in order to allow members from the other two Houses to serve on it. [Interjections.] I believe that all members of Parliament should have a say in the recommendations and not merely be used as rubber stamps to approve legislation in this connection.

The problems we had included the land surrounding the Inanda Dam. The problem with the Chalumna area is a good example of this, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that he was prepared to address our extended study group at Laboria Park about the incorporation of this area in the Ciskei.

If hon members of the other two Houses serve on this commission, it will not be necessary in future for the hon the Minister to come and explain, since every member who serves on the commission will inform his caucus accordingly. I believe that decisions will also be made more expeditiously.

The striving for more land will always exist and therefore it is necessary that all interested parties be consulted in the matter. The LP of South Africa believes that the solutions to our constitutional problems are to be found in a non-racial geographical federation. We realise that the TBVC states and the self-governing states are a reality that cannot be wished away. That is why it is our objective to see them evolve into economically viable units, which in time can be included in a federal government as autonomous states.

For that reason we have the greatest appreciation for the socio-economic upliftment of the inhabitants of the self-governing states. The things I am referring to include the agricultural development, community services, cattle breeding programmes, the provision of education and health services, the sport and recreational facilities, business ventures and especially the industrial development that has been brought about in these areas. The Government owes it to these underdeveloped communities to uplift them.

Our problems with ownership of land started as far back as 1913 with legislation that set aside approximately 10,5 million morgen of land for Black occupation. The legislation made it clear that Black people were not allowed to own any land outside this area. Naturally this land was insufficient and led to great dissatisfaction.

In 1936 the Government gave the Black people a supplementary 7,25 million morgen of land by way of the Development Trust and Land Acts. This land is still insufficient, and leaders of national and self-governing states will continue to insist on the expansion of their territory. Land, together with human and natural wealth, means power to any leader and that is why that situation will always cause discontentment.

With respect to the urban Blacks, the situation has improved considerably due to the fact that Black people can now purchase land in urban areas. This gave recognition to the permanence of Black people and I believe that to a large extent it will help to give the reform process a push in the right direction. Until recently the Black man was a stranger in the country of his birth. However, he has now received land tenure and will, I hope be given the franchise soon.

It is a fact that these self-governing states have identified leaders, leaders who are highly regarded within the South African community. I want to quote from what Chief Minister Enos Mabuza said in 1980 at the opening of our national congress. He said:

These are the words of an acknowledged leader, whom we do not want to wish away. He is a person who has made himself available to play a role in South African politics. For that reason we recognise the existence of these areas.

In order to realise Black aspirations and to allay White fears, it is necessary that these two extremely polarised groups get to know and trust one another. To achieve that it is necessary for historical backlogs and inequalities which characterise our community, to be rectified. Unfortunately, or shall I say fortunately, it is the function of the department and its extremely skilful political head to take the lion’s share of this task.

Only when we have freed ourselves from the history of victimisation will everyone in South Africa feel that it is truly their home and fatherland. Our wonderful country is bleeding to death. A transfusion of hope, that is based on justice, is what is urgently required.

Black aspirations pertain to the basic human rights which the overwhelming majority of South Africans have been denied as a result of apartheid laws. Black people in and outside the self-governing states demand full South African citizenship, land tenure, a non-racial education system and equal political representation in a democratic South Africa. The Department of Development Aid has a major role to play, and we want to wish them everything of the best in this, their biggest task. The department has the task to uplift people and to help to identify leaders who in time will play the role of catalysts in establishing a new South Africa.

In conclusion it was per chance that I attended a sitting of a joint committee this morning at which the Alteration of Boundaries of Self-Governing Territories Bill was discussed. Unfortunately I could not stay until the end of the meeting. Documentation regarding Botshabelo also reached our caucus today. I wish to make an appeal to the hon the Minister to explain fully what the fate of the people of Botshabelo is, especially after the sentence has been passed, and whether the Act will be declared invalid by means of the court finding.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the kind words of the hon member Mr Douw concerning the tour and the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Bill. If that is his approach, we can make our way in South Africa.

The development gap between the more and the less developed countries of the world is increasing daily, merely because the less developed countries do not have the necessary knowledge and skills at their disposal to create viability in some cases. Many countries, especially those of the Third World, are characterised by a lack of industries and modern agricultural methods as well as the existence of a rural way of life and traditional methods of farming which result in famine and unemployment. Country towns and even the cities are more or less static, unplanned and quite frequently lack proper organisation.

In the sixties, South Africa experienced a renewal of thought regarding the furnishing of aid. Now, unlike at that time, White capital can be used for the upliftment and development of people of colour. I was pleased to hear the hon member for Lichtenburg say this afternoon that the CP agreed with the increase in this Vote. I was pleased to hear by means of an interjection from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly that he said that White capital could be used for the development of Black people. If that is the standpoint, we are acting in the interests of South Africa. At a time when we are approaching an election, I want to say that I think the CP bade the hon the Minister farewell prematurely because he will return. The hon the Minister will definitely return. [Interjections.] I ask hon members to tell the voters what they say here in Parliament. In other words, they are not to tell the voters that we give everything to Blacks. Let us act in this way and speak with one voice in the interests of South Africa. I thank hon members for the positive standpoint which they will be able to take to the election.

The objectives and goals of the entire development process, as instituted in steps taken to furnish assistance and the policy of the South African Government as the provider of assistance, are very difficult to discuss in 10 minutes. I want to refer to a few actions, however, which in themselves signify a success story—a story which is evidence that the steps taken by the South African Government in furnishing aid are not paternalistic in the first place but rather directed at self-help and it is important that they are able to give the taxpayer reassurance because we are acting in the interests of South Africa. A well-known person in the development world, Asher, commented as follows on the money and funds which are voted for development:

I should like to discuss the Development Bank of Southern Africa in that spirit because it is a source of financing and technical assistance which is directed at encouraging economic development projects in participating states. The self-governing territories are included among these participating states. The Development Bank therefore carries out a development support function regarding the capital investment element of the participating states’ economic development, specifically where financing cannot be obtained from the private sector for a particular project.

Larger projects which were partially or totally financed in their implementation phase by the Development Bank in the self-governing areas up to 31 March 1988 amount to approximately R232 million for 45 projects. I consider that the achievements of the Development Bank cannot really be appreciated before the multiplier effect which results from this investment is properly taken into account and absorbed in the economy.

Another milestone in development aid is contained in the acceptance of a comprehensive regional industrial development policy which has been formulated by the economic community of South Africa—that is the old TBVC states. I want to tell the hon the Minister that this sounds like a splendid name— the economic community of South Africa. As I was driving past the Development Bank the other day, I wondered whether it was not perhaps the headquarters of the new EEC of South Africa.

This regional industrial development policy was adopted on 1 April 1983. The cardinal point is that a regional industrial development programme was included as an element of this development policy. The result of this is that, since the adoption of the policy up to the 1987-88 financial year, a total—I think this is absolutely remarkable—of 175 425 new employment opportunities were created. Surely this makes for stability. Surely this is the objective of development and development aid.

Aside from successes achieved in the creation of employment opportunities, during the period of 1 April 1982 up to 31 March 1987, 2 939 industrial projects were established with a joint investment amounting to R3,8 billion. The creation of job opportunities is an important economic goal for a developing economy like that of South Africa, especially as seen against the background of a high birth rate and in addition that the population profile of the South African population is very youthful and large numbers of young entrants to the labour market have to be accommodated.

I want to return to the CP. If we are to adopt the standpoint in the election that it is essential to vote money for the development of communities of colour, let us speak with one voice in telling our people that it provides an essential contribution to the fertility rate. The higher the human development, the lower the fertility rate. Let us tell the people that. Let us stop trying to create suspicion about this matter.

I should also like to turn to the South African Development Trust Corporation. This was touched upon by the hon member for King William’s Town and the hon member for Cradock. The STK is a further instrument in furnishing aid which tackles changing development needs effectively and efficiently. The Development Trust Corporation has a group of experts at the grass-roots level of development who deal effectively with the various needs of development and their attendant problems, as they may appear in the community concerned, to the benefit of the donor country and the benefit of the receiver country. The STK has succeeded in involving the community in the entire development process. Let me give hon members one example. The private sector was induced to provide loan funds for those essential projects— something without which the performance which was achieved would have been very difficult. The Development Trust Corporation has not given rise to greater single-direction involvement of the South African Government. No! An excellent example of this is to be seen in KwaNdebele, where agricultural development has been transferred to the local government.

The point is that the objectives of the South African Government to furnish aid, to help somebody to help himself so that one may ultimately cease furnishing aid or that it is no longer essential to furnish aid—are dealt with brilliantly by means of this.

Another STK achievement is that it succeeded in establishing a further 100 irrigation farmers on the Makatini Flats in the 1988-89 financial year. The total figure reflects 250 farmers who have been established on the Makatini Flats by the STK. The important point here is this—those are all people who are filled with pride now. Those are people who have something to lose in their present position. Because they are in a position in which they can lose something, we can rely on their co-operation and support in the interests of greater South Africa.

Achievements such as these cause the Development Trust Corporation to be regarded as an absolutely reliable partner in Third World areas. It is regarded as a partner with whom the private sector can invest with confidence. Considering, as I have already said, that the object is actually to cease furnishing aid, I appeal this afternoon that we look at the establishment of joint undertakings in the interests of South Africa. This is not only conducive to the idea of the devolution of power because, if we could succeed in obtaining greater involvement of the private sector in development, this would ultimately be in accordance with the idea of privatisation, something which we advocate strongly. This is something with which I am able to associate myself wholeheartedly.

It is obvious, when I take note of the annual report, of the achievements of the Development Trust Corporation, that this is an organisation in which development expertise is much in evidence and that it is an organisation which puts that development expertise and its capital to effective use. This corporation is predisposed to accommodating the aspirations of developing communities and ultimately—that is the final goal—realising the rationale of furnishing aid, that is to furnish aid so that aid may ultimately be discontinued. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the rundown on this second part of the debate on this second Vote I should like to express my sincere thanks to all hon members for their participation. On the one hand I want to thank them for the thorough preparation which has been reflected in so many of their speeches and which has also created an avenue through which the work the department does can be made known, but on the other hand also for the expert, and at times positive, critical contributions they have made, from which both the department and I can profit, as it were.

As the hon member for Berea rightly put it, there can be little doubt about the importance of the development of the self-governing territories and the trust areas. We would probably agree with him that in accordance with the prevailing needs, as in the case of all the countries in Africa—in fact all underdeveloped countries—one can never do enough. One is compelled to note, as numerous hon members have mentioned, that the means we do have available to us must be administered in such a way that we can obtain the maximum benefit and obtain the greatest possible effect from this inexhaustible reservoir—as it were, a bottomless pit—of needs that we have to meet as far as it is possible to do so.

For me personally it is always a challenge when one tackles a job that actually seems impossible. On the one hand it hones one’s perceptions as a human being, bringing one to the realisation that one cannot only depend on one’s own abilities, that in one’s actions one must also have recourse to faith. On the other hand, it is indeed exciting to tackle such an extensive task, with everyone’s assistance, and to see, in time, contours emerging from the amorphous mass, see a light glimmering in the darkness, see progress being made and despondency give way to joy.

I should also like to emphasise that the self-governing territories are part of South Africa. They are regional governments of South Africa. The inhabitants of those regions, of the self-governing territories, are as much entitled to a portion of the assets and of the prosperity of South Africa as are the inhabitants of every other region, for example those of the provinces. That is why the financial allocations which are made by Parliament, and which annually go to these self-governing territories by way of a statutory amount, are not a favour or a gift. It is something to which those people— the inhabitants of those regions—are as much entitled as every other person in the rest of South Africa.

In this respect I want to agree with the hon member for Berea who said that we could not expect these areas to carry the burden alone; in fact, it is such an obvious remark that it is almost unnecessary to make it. I therefore want to emphasise that these areas, as part of South Africa, and in accordance with the Government’s views, are entitled to a reasonable share of the prosperity and the means available to the country.

As the hon member for Lichtenburg rightly said, these territories also make a contribution to the prosperity of South Africa. Theirs is not only a contribution to the progress and prosperity of those territories themselves, but also a stimulus to the economy of the country as a whole. That is why the development and progress of these territories are important to all of us, to all parts of South Africa, and why we need not be afraid of spending too much on those areas. We must simply ensure that what is spent is spent efficiently. The progress that is made is progress in the interests of South Africa as a whole.

I also want to say that what I find particularly striking is the stimulus that the development of these territories gives to the national or ethnic pride of the inhabitants of those territories. There are some territories that have some degree of ethnic diversity, but historically speaking the majority of them are the actual homelands of specific peoples. For me it is always a source of satisfaction to see the joy and pride with which their leaders and followers burgeon because they experience the situation not only as individuals, not only as chance individuals living together, but also as members of actual peoples or communities. In that respect I think that this developmental work has a further exceptionally valuable facet.

Since critical remarks are sometimes made about the efficiency of the administration of these territories, I should also like to express appreciation for the abilities, the competence and the dedication of the chief ministers and their cabinets in these territories. These are people who, in many respects, are reviled by large sections of their own community, but who take the opportunity to serve in the relevant governmental structures to help their communities progress, and they do so, at times, with a certain degree of risk. Recently these people have given evidence of their desire for proper and clean administration. I mentioned this last year during a similar debate, and I want to reiterate it here today, that the determination with which the chief ministers themselves have taken the initiative in pursuing any signs of irregularities and taking effective action against those irregularities, are an exceptionally gratifying sign, particularly if one bears in mind the limited personnel they have at their disposal.

I also want to express appreciation to the officials who head the various departments in those administrations. For the most part they are officials seconded to those territories by the Department of Development Aid, but there are also people of those communities who already occupy important posts. Seen as a whole, I believe that these administrations are doing exceptionally good work, at times in difficult circumstances. I think we should invest more heavily in granting assistance in the form of the establishment of structures and the provision of competent personnel to assist in the sphere of efficient administration, efficient financial control, the efficient control of supplies and, in particular, the effective training of the people in those territories to do the work themselves, more assistance from the central Government, and in particular development aid, than we have thus far been able to do with the limited means at our disposal. I believe that an investment in the field of manpower, particularly in management, in government and in administration, could furnish a particularly good return or yield, and that we would do well to give more attention to that.

I should like to express appreciation for hon members’ contributions, particularly from my side of the Committee. The hon member for Vryheid, the Chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, touched upon a variety of subjects, of which the emphasis on the whole question of neighbourliness and border relations was a crucially important one.

So often we in South Africa think we can escape the problems of tension involved in border relations, but the borders between groups in South Africa will remain with us and will continue to be a problem. We must learn to live with that and deal with it sensibly. I therefore think the hon member touched upon a very crucial point there.

The hon member for Aliwal rightly emphasised the importance of the fact that in regard to Ciskei and Transkei there should be finality concerning the international border. I should like to take up his remark and advocate co-operation on the part of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates so that we can dispose of the necessary legislation as quickly as possible.

Several hon members, including hon members of the House of Representatives, and members on our side, said that at times there were unnecessary delays in carrying out certain promises. That is true. I want to point out to hon members of the House of Representatives that many of these matters involve promises the Government made in previous years, in the course of negotiations, and which it has now taken a long time to implement. At times this was for financial reasons and at times for reasons involving negotiation with the owners of the land that had to be obtained. I think it is unfair to the whole historic run-up to this if, in its implementation, someone were to put a spoke in the wheel at the last moment.

The hon member for Umfolozi dealt, in particular, with personnel and the seconding of personnel. I should like to associate myself with his remark about housing subsidies for personnel who are working in developing areas, far from their normal places of residence. I think his request has a great deal of merit. I know it has already been implemented in regard to other professional groups in the Public Service, and my department will definitely take this matter up with the Commission for Administration.

The hon member for Umhlatuzana made an exceptionally valuable contribution, and he did so with a great deal of expertise and enthusiasm. He asked a number of questions to which I shall return in a moment. I should like to thank him for his speech which, in my opinion, was one of the highlights of this debate.

The hon member for Turffontein gave me a helping hand, as it were, and I sincerely want to thank him for the convincing way in which he did so. I appreciate this most sincerely.

†In a short time the hon member for King William’s Town clearly and masterfully sketched the different highlights of the tour in which he, together with other hon members, participated. I am sure that this hon member’s overview of his experiences will be a stimulus to ensure that at the next tour we shall have a 100% attendance.

*The hon member for Cradock also made an exceptionally good and a knowledgeable contribution, something we have come to expect from him. I should like to focus on two points that I think we should follow up. The one concerns the problems involved in the communally-owned tribal land. This was also identified, by the hon member for Umhlatuzana, as a problem in the Natal urbanisation process. It is, of course, a major problem, but the biggest problem is the degree to which this tribal land and the system of communal ownership is part of the centuries-old, deep-rooted culture of the people. One cannot simply root it out without causing major social disruption. This is, however, something to which we must devote great effort. I can also mention here that the chief ministers in the self-governing territories agree with this in principle.

A second point the hon member made, which I think is of great importance, was the suggestion that Black farmers who are settled on a commercial basis should first be given a lease, with an option to buy, so that there can be a process of selection before they are allowed to obtain proprietary rights by way of purchase. I think this is the correct policy, and it is something my department is, in fact, implementing.

I also want to thank the hon member for North Rand for his wide-ranging and comprehensive outline of the urbanisation process and the very valuable data he furnished in his speech.

The hon member for Pretoria Central spoke eloquently, and with conviction, about the successes involved in the work of the most important developmental agents with whom the department co-operates. I want to thank him for what he said, but also for the enthusiasm with which he did so.

I should like to reply briefly to the hon member for Umhlatuzana’s questions.

†Firstly, the hon member asked us a question with regard to the implementation of the KwaZulu-Natal Planning Council’s recommendations. The first or preliminary report’s projects which had already been accepted for implementation in 1985-86 entailed 40 different projects. They have all been carried through and completed. These include the upgrading of facilities but also new developments, particularly the provision of clean drinking-water, sanitation, electricity, storm-water drainage, roads for bus transport, sporting and recreation facilities and health services. As a result of this development 13 345 new sites became available in a number of townships. I have a long list of the names of the townships which I do not want to read out here in detail.

Secondly, he asked about the final report of the KwaZulu-Natal Planning Council. The co-ordinating and implementing committee which has been set up and which is composed of representatives of the KwaZulu government, the Department of Development Aid, the Natal Administration and the Department of Development and Planning has already identified projects to the value of R35 million as the first priorities for the current financial year. These projects would make another 10 000 sites available, especially for the settlement of squatters or for the upgrading of squatter settlements. As has already been mentioned by other contributors to the debate, the provision for this in the budget is actually of the order of R87 million. This co-ordinating committee is working on identifying further projects in addition to the R35 million group which can also be tackled in the course of this year.

In the previous year KwaZulu had already acquired loans from the Development Bank for R3 million and is presently negotiating for a further R57 million for implementation of projects for which the KwaZulu government is responsible, and which qualify for loans from the Development Bank. I think this is a clear indication of progress in this regard.

As far as the problem of tribal land is concerned and the impediment this causes to urbanisation, this has been acknowleged in the report of the KwaZulu-Natal Planning Council, and the KwaZulu government has accepted that it has to be dealt with through negotiation in order to persuade chiefs to abandon part of their land, but in the budget of these projects, financial provision is also made for reasonable compensation for these people so that they can more readily make the land available. I hope that I have dealt with the main points that the hon member raised with me.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills did not make very important statements but he used beautiful words to do so. I thank him for it.

The hon member for Wentworth made a very positive contribution whereas, as he said himself, he used to be rather critical in the past. I am grateful to him for that contribution and I would like to take up the point which he emphasised in the course of his contribution, namely the importance of involving the private sector in the urbanisation process.

Several hon members dealt with this matter. The point that I would like to make—linking up with what the hon member for Wentworth said—is that the private sector should not confine themselves only to those projects of middle price range housing on which they can make a reasonable profit. They have a responsibility—and in this I know that they can get the assistance of the South African Housing Trust—also to concern themselves with price ranges, say, between R12 000 and R25 000 where there is a tremendous need but where the financing is not so easily obtained, and where obviously the profit per unit completed is not quite so attractive.

I think that if they can achieve a reasonable balance between the higher per unit profits they can make on the more expensive houses and the lower per unit profits on the less expensive houses, they will really be able to contribute to progress in an extremely important area.

The hon member Mr Seedat put a number of questions with which I would like to deal briefly. He asked what had become of the incorporation of the Rust de Winter land. The purchase of this land has not been completed. Most of the irrigated units have been purchased and the rest of the extensive farming units are now in the process of negotiation for purchasing. The KwaNdebele government has been informed that no transfers of land will be made before a mutually acceptable agreement on the economically responsible use of that land and the monitoring of that use has been arrived at between the two governments.

The hon member also asked about persons of colour on the staff of the STK. Incidentally, this is a matter which I noticed myself two or three months ago, and I discussed it with the late Dr Human. Something must be done to introduce into the STK more top level Black people who are qualified for appointment. The present situation is that there are no Black persons on the top or senior management level, but there are 21 Black persons compared with 91 Whites in middle management positions. This matter will receive attention, and I think that the hon member touched upon an important point.

He also mentioned, as did the hon member for Vryheid, the point that I referred to a few minutes ago, namely the importance of fulfilling promises and avoiding red tape retarding the implementation of promises. Here again, in the light of his remark, I am sure I will in future have in him an ally in persuading his House to vote for legislation or the acceptance of reports that will implement promises that have been made in the past with regard to land affairs in respect of the self-governing territories.

Whilst I am sure that the hon member for Diamant delivered his speech with the very best of intentions, he did disappoint me somewhat, because I think he failed to give the Department of Development Aid due credit for the very delicate negotiations which we have initiated in the Eastern Cape with regard to the so-called Potsdam squatters. We realise that these people, who were transferred from an area called Blue Rocks to Potsdam, appealed to the South African Supreme Court to recognise their right as South Africans to settle in South Africa. They won the case and the Department of Development Aid has taken the lead, together with other departments, in offering suitable land belonging to the Trust to enable these people to find a reasonable settlement.

We must be very careful, however, that this does not lead to an influx of other people who want to live closer to East London. It therefore has to be controlled very carefully, but I have been informed by our officials in that area that they have regular liaison with a representative committee of the people who have settled there on trust land. I can give the assurance that we are firmly of the intention to find a reasonable, just and fair solution to the problem in that area.

I think I have already mentioned briefly some of the points made by the hon member for Berea.

*As usual, the hon member Mr Douw made a very good contribution. I personally have a great deal of appreciation for the co-operation he and I have built up over the years. He is someone who tells one frankly if he does not like something, and he normally has a very positive contribution to make. I think that his request for the expansion of the Commission for Co-operation and Development is a very reasonable one, and I shall give it further support.

The hon member also asked what the fate of Botshabelo and its people was to be. As far as Botshabelo is concerned, the position is that although the Supreme Court has given a ruling that its incorporation into QwaQwa is invalid, the fact that an appeal has been launched has stabilised the status quo; in other words, until such time as the appeal has been finalised, they remain incorporated into QwaQwa.

In terms of an agreement, however, in the case of most services, the arrangement is, in practice, that the QwaQwa government has asked South African bodies to continue providing those services, although the relevant budget has been transferred to that of QwaQwa instead of to that of the Development Trust or that of other departments. That is, by the way, one of the reasons why QwaQwa’s budget has increased so disproportionately. The hon member for Johannesburg North specifically asked a question about that. Therefore, although QwaQwa has those funds, it does, as it were, pay those funds back to the South African bodies which, as agents, do the work there for it. Until such time as the Appeal Court has given its ruling, the State President’s decision that Botshabelo be incorporated in QwaQwa is still de facto and is maintained in practice.

I should now like to deal with a number of questions that were put by hon members of the CP and the hon member for Johannesburg North. I shall deal presently with the question of what steps are being taken at the moment, and will be taken in future, in connection with the irregularities in the department, a matter about which quite a few hon members asked questions. I shall also be dealing, in a moment, with the more fundamental basis of policy about which hon members also asked certain questions. At the moment I shall merely be answering more specific questions.

Firstly I want to reply to the hon member for Potgietersrus’ question about the excision of 70 ha, at Makalakaskop and Turfspruit, from the reserved area. As the hon member knows, that matter was submitted to Parliament last year in the form of a report of the Commission for Co-operation and Development, and not in the form of legislation. These decisions about increasing or decreasing reserved or released areas are made by way of resolutions of the various Houses of Parliament. It would therefore not be possible, in the case of a deadlock involving the various Houses, to refer such a matter, which was not in the form of a Bill, to the President’s Council. I am convinced, however, that by way of negotiation we could single out a few less contentious matters such as this from the others and submit them to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid with a view to hopefully speeding up the process of approval.

The hon member also asked about a proposed pension scheme for the self-governing territories which was submitted a number of years ago. I have ascertained that that scheme was, as it were, sold to the State by a private undertaking. It was submitted in November 1984 at the special Cabinet Committee appointed in connection with Black affairs, an occasion on which the Chief Ministers were present. The scheme presupposed that the self-governing territories would play an exceptionally active role. The relevant Cabinet Committee referred the matter to the various Chief Ministers, and the proposers of the scheme asked to be able to negotiate with the self-governing territories themselves since it was the responsibility of the self-governing territories, or largely so anyway. Those are matters lying within their area of jurisdiction.

Only the Chief Minister of QwaQwa, who attended that meeting, was interested in the scheme. The other self-governing territories were not interested. After negotiations between the promoters of the scheme and the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister apparently lost interest too. At this stage that is all the further information I have about that scheme. I must say that when the scheme was presented, I had my own doubts about quite a few aspects relating to it, although in my view the intentions were very sound and could possibly have resulted in an important additional source of investment in the self-governing territories. There were, however, serious problems too and, as I have said, in the end the relevant governments were not interested.

The hon member for Pietersburg asked a number of questions. In a set number of minutes he asks many more questions than any person could answer in the same period of time. Firstly he asked why the Lebowa Development Corporation’s annual reports were no longer tabled in Parliament. The fact is that their reports never have been tabled in Parliament, because from the very outset that development corporation was a body of the Lebowa government in terms of its own legislation, the reports being tabled in the legislative assembly of Lebowa. [Interjections.]

The funds involved in the Lebowa Development Corporation are either self-generated from projects they handle themselves or are obtained from share capital obtained from the Lebowa government from that government’s revenue fund. Today we are dealing here with the transfer payments by way of additional allocations to the self-governing territories. As the hon member rightly implied, that is, of course, an important part of the revenue fund of those states. That is why funds voted by Parliament are also indirectly relevant to the Lebowa Development Corporation.

With reference to that, the way in which the taxpayers are consequently informed about the expenditure of those funds, specifically lies in the fact that the Auditor-General of South African departments is also the Auditor-General of Lebowa’s departments. By law his report on the latter, however, is only tabled in the legislative assembly of Lebowa.

Some time ago, however, I made an arrangement whereby the reports of all Auditors-General in regard to the self-governing territories would immediately have to be made available to the Department of Development Aid so that any cases about which the Auditor-General had any doubts or suspicions could be brought to my attention so that we could take the matter up with those territories and, by way of negotiation, put matters right. This would also include unsatisfactory aspects, for example with regard to a development corporation about which a report is issued.

The hon member also referred to the possible appointment of a commission of inquiry for Lebowa and asked if such a commission’s report would be published. The reports of the previous two commissions of inquiry which the State President appointed in regard to Lebowa were both tabled in Parliament, and it depends, of course, upon the hon the State President, as the initiator of the inquiry, whether such a report is tabled after he has received it. The normal custom is that it is, in fact, tabled and published. Let me just mention that my department and other departments are at present, together with the Lebowa government, negotiating a suitable formula for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into a number of matters the Chief Minister urgently and seriously wants to have investigated.

The hon member also referred to page 91 of the Auditor-General’s report in connection with the annual report on stocks. I think he misunderstood that statement in the report. It is not information that has not yet been made available to the Auditor-General. The problem is that it has not yet been possible to reconcile the prescribed annual statement on stocks with the outdated records of previous years. During an investigation in the department’s head office in September last year, the Treasury expressed its satisfaction about stock control in the department, particularly after the new stock administration system was implemented in the department with effect from 1 April of last year.

The hon member also asked his normal series of hospital questions. The first concerned the Sheshegu Hospital, which I recently handed over to the Lebowa government. That hospital, let me just mention, was provided to the Lebowa government by the Department of Development Aid on the basis of a promise made years ago. It is not something Lebowa provided for itself. We provided it for them. What has thus far been completed is only the first phase of what will eventually be a 250-bed hospital. At this stage it is actually, in effect, an adapted CHC-60, or community health centre, primarily intended to relieve the tremendous pressure on the provincial hospital in Pietersburg.

The Sheshegu Hospital does not yet have ordinary beds for term patients, but it does have facilities for 24 maternity beds, a casualty unit with theatre facilities and a number of wards with beds for day patients who merely remain for a day after an accident or an operation. There are already support facilities, which will not substantially have to be expanded, for the future second phase in which a hospital providing 250 beds is to be completed.

On completion of construction, the hospital could unfortunately not be taken into service immediately, because in the planning and construction of the hospital cognisance could not be taken of the drastic reduction in the budgetary growth in the previous and present financial year. It was assumed that there would be more or less the same budgetary growth as there was at the time the planning was done. At the moment personnel are being recruited and the government of Lebowa is making every effort to put the project into operation as quickly as possible.

The hon member also spoke about the Mankweng Hospital, which was constructed by Lebowa itself.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister what the official costs of that hospital were?

I do not have the figures available, but I can get them for the hon member.

As far as the Mankweng Hospital is concerned, the hon member asked the question last year, and at the time I pointed out that the cost increase of R8 million was related to the expansion of an initial capacity of 180 beds to 400 beds. In other words, there was no sudden cost escalation without any reason.

For the reason I have just mentioned that hospital was not taken into operation immediately on completion either. I should like to mention, however, that in the present financial circumstances most provincial authorities are also experiencing the problem of having hospitals completed without being taken into operation immediately.

The hon member will be aware of the fact that the new Johannesburg Hospital is utilising a mere 900 of the more than 1 500 beds, and that the new provincial hospital with 200 beds at Leratong is still empty too. In all these cases, however, we are hoping to employ the necessary people as quickly as possible.

I just want to mention that the overall cost of the Sheshegu Hospital is R11 million.

The Mankweng Hospital was completed in March of last year and put into operation on 1 July. A total of 384 of the 419 posts have been filled. There are four full-time doctors, 14 part-time doctors and four specialists. Last year 21 500 outpatients and 5 300 hospitalised patients were treated. This year things will proceed along these lines from 1 April.

The Mokopane College of Education was erected by Lebowa, and the department is not involved in that at all. Lebowa paid for that out of its own budget. I have been informed that at present it accommodates 1 025 students for various teaching diplomas. In answer to a question the hon member asked, let me say that no training is provided in the medical field.

The hon member also asked about obtaining land in accordance with the quotas in terms of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. In terms of section 10 of that Act, in which the quotas are determined, and which has meanwhile been amended by Parliament, the quota can be exceeded by a surface area of land in excess of the quota approved by Parliament from time to time.

Land exceeding the quotas, already approved by Parliament and subsequently obtained, amounts to approximately 900 000 ha. Particulars of this are set out fully on page 14 of the annual report.

As far as further purchases are concerned, subject to consolidation decisions which have already been taken or will probably be taken, we estimate that a further 203 000 ha will have to be purchased by the Trust, and at that stage, I think, the whole process will be completed, as far as it is humanly possible to do so. So much for the questions put by the hon member for Pieters-burg.

The hon member for Lichtenburg specifically expressed his disappointment at the self-governing territories’ own contributions and hoped that the extent of the own increases, as a percentage of the Appropriation for the self-governing territories, would again evidence a positive trend. That is a matter I dealt with in my introductory speech.

I want to mention, however, that the factors influencing this situation are, firstly, the exceptional growth in educational funds, which makes the total on the basis of which the percentage is calculated that much greater and therefore decreases the percentage. The hon member will know that during the past four or five years there has been an enormous growth in these educational allocations which have been earmarked.

Secondly, up to the year before last droughts drastically decreased agricultural production and also had a serious effect on livestock, which was one of the most important sources of revenue of the territories. The general decrease in economic activity in South Africa over the previous two years has undoubtedly also had an effect.

In my introductory speech I made certain remarks about the fact that the transfer of new functions to the self-governing territories, together with the additional funds voted for that purpose, have the same effect, ie that the total on the basis of which the percentage is calculated becomes considerably greater and the percentage therefore becomes smaller. What is more, many of these new functions are not revenuegenerating functions, for example police, prisons and so on.

As far as Rust de Winter is concerned, the hon member asked whether the increasing land prices will be taken into consideration in the case of further valuations. The hon member for Lichtenburg knows the valuation process as well as I do. In his day I think he has worked with that longer than I have. Firstly the valuations are done by independent professional valuators from the private sector, appointed by the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. Subsequently they are submitted to the Land Affairs Board of that department. They are assessed by them and a recommendation is submitted to the Minister of Education and Development Aid, whose department takes the matter further.

A landowner can lodge an objection if he is dissatisfied, and new valuations can be made, but if no agreement can ultimately be reached, the land of the person concerned can be expropriated. The initial amount offered is then paid to him in terms of the Expropriation Act, and he can institute a claim, by legal process, to obtain the supplementary amount he claims to have a right to.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he can give an indication of when these transactions at Rust de Winter will be concluded?

The intention is to conclude them this year.

Mr Chairman, on the basis of the names I supplied to him, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is satisfied that the norms applied when those valuations are made, are correct, and that the same norms are going to be applied to the rest of the people?

Mr Chairman, of course, I have not committed those files to memory; to tell the truth, I do not even know the names by heart. In order to reply to that question it would be necessary for me to make a thorough study of these aspects.

Nevertheless, the procedure that is adopted leads one to accept that the answer to the hon member’s question must be in the affirmative, because that is a procedure that goes through the various phases I have just mentioned. The Department of Development Aid very closely studies the final recommendation that comes from Land Affairs with a view to identifying any possible errors in calculation or implementation. In many cases the landowners’ legal representatives or the landowners themselves come forward with arguments about aspects possibly not considered in the valuation. As the hon member knows, a proper valuation of reasonably developed property can, in point of fact, only take place in very close co-operation with the landowner, who ought to point out all aspects to a valuator. I shall examine the cases involving these people and furnish the hon member with an answer. The rest of the hon member for Lichtenburg’s argument dealt more generally with political aspects which I shall come to in a moment.

†The remaining client I have to deal with is the hon member for Johannesburg North. In regard to the hon member’s question about the annual report it is true that the change in the term according to which the reporting has been done has caused confusion and certain inaccuracies which were identified at a relatively late stage. This delayed the printing of the report. Then there were problems with the printer who produced rather more printing errors than usual and, in the end, the whole thing was produced in house.

Secondly, he referred to the fact that he had not been invited to join the tour of MPs to KwaZulu. The fact is that members of the joint committee were originally invited and when they could not come we moved further also to invite members of the study groups or caucus groups of the various parties concerned whose members could not attend. There must be some omission that in the case of the absence of the hon member for Berea the matter was not followed up with an invitation to the member for Johannesburg North. I can assure him that we will be very glad to include him. We think he will be a considerable asset to the social side of the tour.

His suggestion of a workshop I think has considerable merit. I would like to take it up. Perhaps we could have a discussion so that I can get more clarity as to exactly what his intentions are. I think this is a useful suggestion.

He enquired about the Jacobs Commission with regard to KwaNdebele. It is of course a fact that due to the death of the first Commissioner, Mr Justice Boshoff, Mr Justice Jacobs was only appointed a week or two ago, and obviously the work has only to start now. The Rumpff Commission on Moutse falls under my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I am not in a position to answer on that matter.

The hon member raised a very basic question of the disparity in the allocation of funds to the six self-governing territories as in Annexure A of the budget. The first reason for the disparity is that in some cases additional functions are transferred in a specific year which leads to a considerable leap in the funds transferred from the department which previously handled them to the self-governing territory. In this case, for instance, the transfer of Botshabelo involved a very considerable increase in the grant for QwaQwa.

On the other hand, if areas are withdrawn from a self-governing territory—like the administration of Moutse that has been withdrawn from Kwa-Ndebele—there occurs a considerable drop in the amount for that self-governing state. There was—as the hon member will see by way of comparison—a very big increase in the case of QwaQwa and a decrease in the case of Kwa-Ndebele.

The problem with the allocation of funds is that the annual increases in the limited funds are made largely on a pro rata basis with reference to the present allocation. This present allocation, however, has in many cases built-in historical disparities which have to be eliminated. Therefore the Government has instructed the Central Economic Advisory Service to work out and develop a system of norms and standards as a yardstick with regard to the various services for which funding is provided for the self-governing states and also for which budget assistance is provided to the independent states. This process of working out norms and standards has already to a large extent been finalised in the case of education where there are such norms and standards and where the comparative funding of the various states can be very clearly ascertained. This is the direction we are moving in.

The hon member also asked about the properties purchased from Mr Vermaas. These properties were valued—as I mentioned just now—by two independent private valuators appointed by the Land Affairs section of the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs. Then the matter was considered by the Land Tenure Board of the department. They approved of a specific price which they considered to be the fair and realistic market value of the land. Then an offer was made to Mr Vermaas. He was not prepared to accept it and he required a much higher price than the amount offered to him. No justification could, however, be found to increase the price and then the land was expropriated and, according to the Expropriation Act, the money offered to him was paid to him and then he instituted legal proceedings for the additional amount which he considered he was entitled to.

After considering the matter, and upon recommendation by the State Attorney and the advocates handling the State’s case in this instance, the claim was settled out of court for the amount reflected in the relevant document tabled in Parliament. That amount is far below the initial amount Mr Vermaas wanted.

The history of this transaction, as well as the findings of the Harms Commission have been studied carefully, and I see no justification for reviewing that transaction. There is no information available which suggests that that transaction should be reviewed.

Then, in his second speech, the hon member dealt with the question of Braklaagte. He gave a very full and detailed exposition of the whole situation. I do not want to repeat it all. What I want to say, however, is that on four occasions public notice was given of the fact that the Government had decided to incorporate Braklaagte, together with some intervening land, into Bophuthatswana. This was at variance with the original decision that the people of Braklaagte had to be resettled.

Firstly, the Commission for Co-operation and Development, in 1983, advertised this plan and asked for public reaction. Then, in 1984, the Government’s decisions, after recommendations were received from the commission, were again published for public information. In 1985, after the hon the State President had negotiated the matter with President Mangope, the agreement between the two Presidents was again published. After that the matter was again dealt with in public, in this Parliament, when the necessary legislation providing for the changes in the Act on borders of the independent states was debated and the matter was approved here in Parliament.

It was only about a month afterwards and after certain politicians in this Parliament had acquainted themselves with the matter, that suddenly a wave of opposition to incorporation arose at Braklaagte.

It is generally known that the people of Braklaagte objected to the incorporation of that area, by proclamation by the State President, into the territory of Bophuthatswana. They took the matter to court. The Supreme Court carefully considered their case. All the facts were placed before the court and the Supreme Court found in favour of the incorporation and confirmed it. I should also like to add that in affidavits placed before the court the President of Bophuthatswana gave assurances in connection with the goodwill of his government in relation to the residents of the Braklaagte area. I know the Department of Foreign Affairs is giving attention to the alleged maltreatment of residents there—allegations which conflict with what was stated in the affidavits before the court.

This matter therefore, I believe, has been dealt with very carefully over a long period by the Government. At the very end I granted an extensive interview to the representatives of the community there, together with their legal representatives. I considered all their arguments and I could not find a single one which had not been raised in the previous stages when protests were lodged causing the Government to consider whether it should review the matter before going back to President Mangope.

Although the people of Braklaagte are unhappy to a certain extent, I nevertheless have a suspicion that a large part of the dissatisfaction revolves around the question of who should be the chief there. There are two competing groups with regard to the chieftainship or the headmanship, and I believe that also plays a significant role.

The hon member also referred to the Potsdam squatters. I think I have adequately dealt with this matter in my reply to the hon member for Diamant. I also think this takes care of the points made by the hon member for Johannesburg North.

*Hon members also asked me to inform the Committee about steps taken by the department in connection with irregularities that have occurred.

The request concerned information about the steps taken in the Department of Development Aid to hone the administration with a view to preventing irregularities, and also with a view to tracing irregularities and punishing offenders. The hon members for Potgietersrus, Pietersburg and Johannesburg North, in particular, touched upon this aspect.

The hon member for Potgietersrus alleged that in the Department of Development Aid, in contrast to the Department of Education and Training, a cloak of secrecy had been drawn over further action to be taken.

The hon member for Pietersburg said that an impression of secrecy was being created. That is quite simply a misrepresentation. Here I want to state very clearly what has been done in this regard, and this indicates very clearly that everything is not being shrouded in secrecy.

It is also true, however, that the department cannot carry out all its investigations in public. It would turn this country into a complete circus if every department investigated every matter in public.

Absolute idiocy!

That is so ridiculous; it is too ridiculous to be let off its leash, as the Hollanders say. [Interjections.]

Firstly the essential facts, including those involving dismissals, were made known by me in press statements on 7 December of last year and on 16 February of this year. On my own initiative I also conveyed information to the joint meeting of Parliament during the Additional Appropriation debate on 20 February. This matter was therefore very clearly and openly brought to people’s attention by us.

Secondly, the irregularities were exposed by departmental inspections, by investigations by the Auditor-General and also as a result of investigations into certain allegations by the Advocate-General. Surely hon members know that both the Auditor-General and the Advocate-General are compelled by law to table reports in Parliament concerning their investigations. If there is consequently anything more that is unsatisfactory, it will come to light in those reports. There is consequently no question of a cloak of secrecy.

The action taken by the department, on the basis of the information furnished to it by the Auditor-General and the Advocate-General, was determined and was taken with the full knowledge of those two functionaries. Meanwhile the department’s inspectorate is proceeding, and the Auditor-General and the Advocate-General are also proceeding with their investigations as part of the normal course of events.

Thirdly—a fact that is well-known—in the light of available information a number of officials have been suspended from service, whilst others have been transferred, some having had their duties restructured. A number of cases have been referred to the SA Police for investigation and criminal action. Discussions have been held with the hon the Minister of Law and Order to expedite these investigations as far as is practicable. The police action must also lead to public trials in courts of law, and there, too, there is no question of a cloak of secrecy.

Fourthly, all delegations for the purposes of making recommendations about the allocation of contracts for obtaining goods and services have been suspended, and the function has been allocated to a committee under the chairmanship of a DDG.

Fifthly, an independent management consultant, Mr L W Dekker, has been appointed to investigate the control measures and procedures in the department relating to the allocation of contracts and rights and to make recommendations for the elimination of any shortcomings he may identify.

In the sixth place I unfortunately have to say that the department’s inspectorate is grappling with a serious staff problem. Only nine posts have been filled. Meanwhile the inspectorate has been augmented by temporarily withdrawing suitable officials from other divisions, and work study investigations have been stopped or drastically curtailed in order to allow the inspectorate to concentrate on financial and stock control. In particular all divisions have been streamlined once more with regard to the scrupulous implementation of existing control regulations. The training of staff involved in finance and stock has also been streamlined, and it has been pointed out to control officials that when a new person is appointed to a post, it is the control officials’ responsibility to ensure that that person knows the rules and provisions under which he works.

In the seventh place attention is being given to the unsatisfactory overall scope of the responsibilities of the Chief Director of Works, since no fewer than eight directors must report to him.

In the eighth place a departmental policy has been drawn up concerning the involvement of officials with, or their relationships to, firms furnishing services to the department, inter alia by way of family ties. This policy instruction has been issued to all staff members. It is aimed at having people declare their interests and withdrawing from advisory or decision-making duties where it is applicable in these cases. All these aspects are surely clear proof of the fact that no one is in any way dragging his feet and that there are no cloaks of secrecy.

I also want to refer very briefly to previous measures introduced in the department. The first deals with the question of stock administration. In 1984 an in-depth investigation was undertaken into the department’s stock management system which had many defects. This led to several corrective steps being taken a year later, in June 1985. What is more, the new provisioning administration system was introduced in the department, on 1 April of last year, at the request of the Treasury and after a long process of preparation. However, the problem remains that the establishment is, in point of fact, quite inadequate to carry out this task properly, although now, after a long process of negotiation, additional posts have been approved. These posts are in the process of being filled.

I refer to the fact that during a visit to our head office in September of last year, the Treasury expressed its satisfaction with the state of stock control.

A further point I want to mention, in conclusion, relates to the measures involving the administration of Botshabelo—a town which has mushroomed but whose administration has, for a very long time now, been hopelessly understaffed. The result has been that several irregularities have come to light since 1984. Meanwhile, however, there has been extensive reorganisation and replanning, with a proper establishment, of the administration of the town. As town clerk we have recruited a former town clerk of Bloemfontein, who is still a relatively young man. A secretary has also been appointed, and whilst we could not succeed in obtaining a properly qualified treasurer, we have, after obtaining approval, hired a professional accounting firm to deal with this financial management.

I want to content myself with that. Perhaps I should just make one further concluding remark in connection with the Republic of South Africa’s policy in regard to the future of the self-governing territories.

The hon member for Aliwal actually gave the hon member for Pietersburg an unequivocal answer in this regard. The NP is still prepared to grant full independence to every self-governing territory that requests it. The NP will not, however, force it upon them. Those self-governing territories that want to remain a part of the Republic of South Africa, remain a part of the Republic of South Africa. At the moment we must say frankly that it does not seem as if any of the governments of the self-governing territories are in favour of independence.

Just the following. For those self-governing territories that remain as part of the Republic of South Africa, the Government has said that it is prepared to extend the existing autonomy. Over a long period extensive negotiations were also conducted by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, negotiations which have manifested themselves in a new Bill concerning self-governing territories. After having been passed by Parliament, this Bill will make it possible for those self-governing territories that want to do so, to replace the existing National States Constitution Act, 1971.

Hon members therefore see that the NP is making progress, dealing with new problems in accordance with the demands of our times, but also maintaining the important and useful achievements of the past, which have worked well and are sound, keeping them alive and extending them.

This is in striking contrast to the comedy, the farce, we saw on television a few weeks ago when the CP’s policy of partition came up for discussion. [Interjections.] Hon members will remember that on that evening we witnessed five totally different plans, relating to how the policy of partition could be implemented, from the rightwing political spectrum. There was the CP. There was Prof Boshoff. There was the HNP. There were the Oranjewerkers. There was the AWB. I think Robert van Tonder also peeped in at the door with his “Boerevolkstaat”. [Interjections.]

What was interesting was that each of these five plans was only supported by its own proponent, but was denigrated and criticised by all of the remaining four who found themselves in that same political domain. [Interjections.] Prof Carel Boshoff s honesty proved, once and for all, that the CP’s policy is a wasteland policy, a thirstland policy. [Interjections.] It could only work—insofar as one could call that working—if it were established in a sparsely-populated desert area, because there, Prof Carel Boshoff says, the money magnates and other similar social atrocities would surely not establish themselves. [Interjections.]

In contrast we have the flagrant disregard for responsibility on the part of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who said that one should really not draw any boundaries now. Of course not! I can understand why not. He cannot afford to have any boundaries drawn, because then everyone would see and know that no such meaningful boundaries can be drawn. [Interjections.] Here we are dealing with a policy about which even the inner circle of CP thinkers and leaders and their supporters could not obtain a modicum of agreement, there being only an optimum of confusion, with five different plans, five different proposals, each with four opponents from their own circle. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the words of thanks and appreciation conveyed to Dr Brand Fourie who is retiring soon as Chairman of the Board of the SABC, and also with the congratulations conveyed to Prof Viljoen and Mr Harmse. I wish Mr Harmse good luck with the task that is awaiting him. If he listened carefully to the debate during the past two days, he will have realised that he has a very difficult task, but I think the fact that all political parties were dissatisfied with the coverage they receive on television and radio must indicate to him that the SABC is actually on the right road. If everyone is dissatisfied then he must know that all is actually going well, because it is simply not possible for an organisation such as the SABC to satisfy everyone.

The debate during the past few days also highlighted a few interesting aspects. The CP speakers accused the SABC of contributing to the fact that the CP fared so badly in the previous elections. [Interjections.] It must be good to be able to blame someone else for one’s poor performance. If I heard correctly how the SABC is going to favour the NP in the coming elections, it seems to me that they are already making excuses for the fact that they are once again headed for a poor performance. [Interjections.] It is interesting that people always look for someone else to blame if their own policy does not gain enough support for them.

Once again the SABC was repeatedly accused of favouring the NP when it came to political broadcasts. We can demonstrate that that is not true by looking at the time allocation granted to the political parties during the 1987 election. For the period 1 January to 5 May 1987 the time allocation was as follows: The NP received 45% coverage as opposed to the 55% of the opposition parties collectively. From 1 March to the evening of 5 May the NP only received 40% of the time allocated for election slots.

As far as the political news coverage on Monitor is concerned, 41% of the time was allocated to the NP and 59% to the opposition parties. On Radio Today 32% of the time was allocated to the NP as opposed to the 68% of the opposition parties. Therefore if one takes into consideration that the NP has 120 seats as opposed to the 46 of the collective opposition, it is …

How many voters?

… it is very clear that the opposition parties were favoured quite disproportionately in the 1987 election. Then the opposition parties accuse the SABC of favouring the NP! This is based on a feeling, while the facts prove exactly the opposite. I hope that I have proved once and for all that the complaint that the SABC favours the NP is simply not true. [Interjections.]

I am grateful that the hon member for Losberg has just entered, because I want him to listen now. Last year in a debate and on other occasions he said that when an election was announced, the principle that all political parties were equal and had to be treated equally because they stood an equal chance of winning the election, also had to apply in South Africa with respect to the time allocation the SABC gave the political parties. To substantiate this, he mentioned that in other …

I still say it.

The hon member must listen to me. I shall prove that what he says is not true. He tried to prove that it was true and mentioned other countries in which it was allegedly the case. When I heard that I made inquiries and received information about what happens in Britain for example …

I mentioned West Germany as an example. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to address the hon member who is speaking, as a “jong”.

Order! We are all hon members. The hon member is not permitted to do that. [Interjections.] Did the hon member use the word “jong”?

Yes, Sir. I shall withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in Britain the Conservative Party is granted five opportunities of 10 minutes each for their party political broadcasts. The social and liberal democrats receive three such opportunities of 10 minutes each; the social democratic party receives 10 minutes. The fact of the matter is therefore that the hon member for Losberg’s argument that all political parties be given equal time, does not hold in regard to other democratic countries, nor can the SABC be expected to allocate equal time to political parties in South Africa.

Therefore that argument of the hon member for Losberg falls away completely. As a national broadcaster the SABC has a duty to maintain a sound balance when it comes to the broadcasting of programmes. It is certainly not possible for the SABC to satisfy all the people all the time because people’s taste and preferences differ. Some people would like to watch sport all day and with the subdivision of one activity people would, for example, prefer to watch only rugby. I would like to spend all day watching Northern Transvaal beat WP. I would be able to watch that match all day. [Interjections.] Other hon members would like to watch other kinds of sport. [Interjections.] However, if one looks at page 31 …

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices and give the hon member for Sunnyside a chance to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

When one looks at page 31 of the SABC’s annual report, one is impressed once again by the wide spectrum dealt with by the SABC, and what a variety of tastes the SABC has to satisfy. I could mention a few examples to hon members of the time allocations that appear in this publication. For example, 21,5% of the total viewing time is allocated to music—light as well as serious music; 17,4% to magazine programmes; 9,6% to Monitor and Spitstyd; 9,3% to religious programmes, 7,4% to dramas and feature programmes, 6,6% to news, economic news and commentary; 5,7% to sport; 5,7% to youth and children’s programmes; 4% to literature and art, and so I can continue.

It is obvious that the SABC is attempting to satisfy all tastes and preferences in South Africa. In addition the SABC is often accused of only using foreign programmes and of the local content of its programmes being too low. Once one starts looking at the facts it is interesting that it becomes clear—in this respect I am referring to page 41 of the annual report—that there are a number of programmes of which the local content is in fact commendably high. The local content of dramas, for example, is 32,97%, of documentary programmes 64,61%, of journalistic programmes 98,21%, of variety programmes 58,04%, of sport 68,28%, of music 83,62%, of religious programmes 100%, and of educational programmes 100%. This proves that the SABC takes the trouble to give its programmes local content.

That is why I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all employees and personnel who are involved with the SABC on the way in which they serve the diversity of population groups and people in South Africa. If we want to be honest and sincere, we must admit that the SABC succeeds in offering good and professional programmes, in spite of the diversity in which we live. I want to thank the new chairman. Prof Viljoen, the new Director-General and all the personnel and wish them the best of luck for the year ahead.

Mr Chairman, I wish briefly to explain the view of the DRP about the information broadcast by the Department of Information on the radio and TV as well as other written material which was provided with reference to the municipal elections during October 1988.

Except for negative propaganda from the radicals, the whole effort achieved enormous success in advocating non-participation. Participants in the election, like the political parties, taxpayers’ associations as well as independents used the material of the department eagerly and with open minds. They voluntarily distributed thousands of pamphlets. Posters and banners were used to decorate the polling stations. The spray painting of “Don’t vote” slogans on walls degenerated into a big joke. Even now, after the election, people are complaining to their municipal representatives, to their MPs and to anyone who cares to listen, that their suburbs are still dirty and contaminated with these things. They are now looking for assistance to clean their walls; even those who did not vote want us to come and clean their walls.

Nobody can deny that the voting percentage increased and that shows us that the slogan “Your vote can make things happen” was a big success. Let us look, for example, at the voting percentage in Khayelitsha. In Khayelitsha, one of the winners, 17 000 votes were cast, and in one of the losers, 7 000 votes. Is that not remarkable? This shows how successful the whole campaign was.

Our party therefore feels that the department should launch a similar campaign to encourage voters to use their voting power and to show the whole world that we accept democracy and reform. Briefly, we accept democratic reform. That is why our party has this name. The name of our party says what kind of reform we wish to have. We spell it out. We do not mince matters. We reject violence, we reject revolution, we also reject corruption.

Mr Chairman, because of the fact that I have very limited time at my disposal, it is not my intention to comment on the speech of the hon member for Matroosfontein.

I want to say that the hon the Minister who is with us again this afternoon is among those in Government who have shown some understanding and a degree of sophistication regarding the strained relations between the Government and the Press.

He is reported, as we heard in this House the other day, to have told a communications and local government seminar last month that without an informed public democratic processes could not proceed and good government was virtually impossible. He is reported to have said further that the function of the mass media was to communicate information about the Government, its actions and its intentions, as well as the effect they had on the community, and its reactions thereto.

This is a fairly breathtaking statement coming from the hon the Minister of a government that continues to apply stringent clamps on vital information of all kinds under the emergency regulations.

It is a matter of some regret therefore that not only has the hon the Minister failed to convince some of his Cabinet colleagues of this fundamental requirement of a free society, but also that he has not impressed upon the SABC—particularly its TV section—that it should strictly follow this principle.

The SABC has been attacked, not only by hon members of the Opposition but also by the man in the street, for its selective reporting, even at times its biased reporting, and for the fact that it appears to be tied to the apron-strings of the Government.

The SABC is an independent autonomous institution and at the present time is financially independent of the Government. Therefore it must project its own independent image. I will do no more than impress upon the hon the Minister that this image of the SABC does his publicly enunciated philosophy about democracy and the need to inform people no good. I would ask him to impress upon the SABC to work positively to remove this image of the media that is under his control. I believe the only way to do this is to completely ensure that the unbiased presentation of news and events is undertaken by the SABC. As an example I wish to refer hon members to a report that appeared on I think the Sunday edition of the SABC-TV news programme which indicated that the MP for Lenasia West, Mr C Pillay, had died. Shortly thereafter that information was corrected and it was indicated that Mr A K Pillay in fact had died. The fact of the matter is that both those MPs are very much alive. [Interjections.] When I met one of them the other day I said to him: “It is quite obvious that you must have asked to come back when you went to the other side, otherwise there would be more carrot-dangling in the House of Delegates.” [Interjections.]

I wish to refer this afternoon to the unfortunate David Hall-Green episode which caused much harm to the individual concerned and as much hurt to the community from which this individual comes. Nobody can tell me that to say that a woman has 14 children—each one from a different father—is anything but highly insensitive, insulting and defamatory.

I am aware of the fact that Mr Hall-Green has apologised to the SABC for his derogatory remark. I am also aware of the fact that in its statement on the matter the SABC indicated that Mr Hall-Green had apologised to the woman concerned. I am also aware of the fact that the unfortunate remark was not meant to be broadcast. However, the fact remains that it was heard by all those watching TV at the time. The fact remains that nobody has been persuaded that that remark was meant to express concern for the future of her children.

The fact remains that Mr Hall-Green has been reported to have refused an offer by The Star that would have enabled him a personal apology to this woman. I believe that an apology to the SABC is not enough. He should have apologised to the nation as a whole, not for the error—that can happen to anybody—but rather for his attitude of mind.

I believe that the remark, in any context, is offensive in the extreme, and if the SABC is staffed by people with similar attitudes, it is a bad reflection on the SABC. Moreover, people with similar attitudes should be removed to make way for those who have a commitment to the peaceful future of a country in which there will be no place for sneering racial remarks.

No matter how the SABC has glossed over this incident, I can assure the hon the Minister that the feelings of the community, particularly the Black community, have not been assuaged by the SABC’s statement on the matter. If the hon the Minister desires—as I indeed know he does— the goodwill of that community he must be seen in the eyes of that community to be bold enough to take steps that will demonstrate that justice in fact has been done. It must transfer this responsibility to the civil court. I expect the hon the Minister to react to that.

Mr Chairman, I should like to follow on the argument started by the hon member for Springfield with regard to the SABC and the general policy that one expects it to follow.

It is so that the SABC has in the past merely followed initiatives taken by other instances. I wish to give hon members an example. Many years ago, as a distinct cultural entity in this country, the South Africans of Indian descent were given about half an hour per week broadcasting time on radio. Thereafter a private group started a radio station emanating from Swaziland, and when this radio station started offering competition to the SABC they woke up and Radio Lotus was started, which I understand beams for about 4½ hours per week at present. Here again the SABC allowed others to take the initiative and merely followed in response to that initiative.

Firstly I should like to pay tribute to Dr Brand Fourie, the outgoing Chairman of the Board of the SABC, as a diplomat, a statesman of stature, and in his latter years— the cherry on the top—as Chairman of the Board of the SABC. I wish him a very happy retirement, and I want to express the hope that the incoming chairman, Prof Christo Viljoen, will lead the SABC into a new era, as there are many challenges facing this country, and that he will be able to meet those challenges.

I also wish to pay tribute to some of those gallant men who have been playing a major role in Parliament in projecting Parliamentary proceedings to the community outside. Here I wish to refer to people like Mr André le Roux—although at times I do not agree with his politics— Messrs Riaan Nel, Douglas McClure, Johan Pretorius and, of course, Ami Nanackchand. I think perhaps SABC-TV should pay attention to allowing these people a bit more opportunity to take part in actuality programmes about matters which affect the day-to-day lives of people and matters topical. I trust that the opportunity will be created where these men could chair panel discussions, particularly now with the advent of the elections, and that all sides will be given an opportunity to be heard.

One is naturally pleased to take note of the fact that the SABC seems to have sorted out its financial problems. Here again I think of the previous Director-General whose abrupt retirement from the SABC still leaves many questions unanswered. In the public mind it is viewed as interference by those at the highest political levels.

If one takes into account that some years ago— two or three years ago, I think—some 23 odd minutes were spent by the leader of the NP of South Africa castigating the leader of the LP on television, and then, if one also takes into account the circumstances that surrounded the whole Koedoe Eksteen affair, one comes to no conclusion other than that the SABC is, in the words of the hon member for Springfield, “tied to the apron-strings of the Government”, and in particular, the political leaders in Government in this country.

This does not do the SABC any good. If the SABC is to maintain a profile of neutrality in this country as the institution which brings true and actual news and reflects true and actual situations to the public at large, it will have to shake off that type of image. It will have to be placed on a more businesslike and more commercial footing.

I sometimes speak a little Fanagalo and a bit of Zulu, even if it is not very much, like the hon member for Klip River who is a White Zulu, but I can at least speak a little bit of Fanagalo, and I understand the sort of programmes that are beamed from SABC TV2 or TV3. One finds that very topical matters are discussed and I would like to recommend that a similar situation is created on SABC’s TV1.

As far as Radio Lotus is concerned, it allows for five minutes on Sundays for a review of the parliamentary proceedings of the whole week. I think hon members will agree with me that with the development of a new culture which is own to certain elements in the House of Delegates—the carrot culture as we know it—it is important that the public at large be made aware of the real goings-on in the House of Delegates. The period allowed for that parliamentary review should be increased so that the carrot danglers will also be treated fairly. I believe that the community outside should know exactly what is happening in the highest institution of this country and how their representatives are participating and what sort of contributions they are making here. By doing that, one will be able to bring about a better understanding within the community. Of course, when MPs return to give an account of their actions, the public at large will be well tuned in and able to demand better of them. Thereby we will be contributing towards a better institution.

I would like to make a few remarks about the “filmbedryf’.

*All I wish to say is that the hon the Minister should perhaps consider appointing certain people to make a film about the goings-on in the House of Delegates. [Interjections.] I wish to assure hon members that if such a film should appear …

Such a comedy!

If such a comedy should well appear …

A best seller?

No, not a best seller, but people would not be able to acquire tickets. It would be totally sold out. [Interjections.] I wish to suggest that the hon Minister consider this because here we have a situation where a leader who lost four by-elections, dangles carrots and then persuades people to be acknowledged by the hon the State President to consider him as the new so-called leader—without fighting an election. [Interjections.]

On whose side are you?

Mr Chairman, you never know which side you are on in the House of Delegates. [Interjections.]

†We only float in the air and take things in our stride.

Now on a more serious note I think it is important to ask the Bureau for Information about some matters which are at present in the public mind. Here one would like to know what role—indeed sometimes one would almost ask what sinister role— the Bureau plays in the whole scheme of joint management centres. I merely want to quote an article which appeared on 7 July, 1987 in the Business Day. This is what is said about this new system, and I quote:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon nominated member Mr Abram.

†I would like to concur with his positive plea for topical debate on TV. However, I must admit, and I think hon members will agree, that it has begun. It began with the hon leader of the NP and the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. It was a beginning. It was something new and we are all learning, but I think it has begun.

The hon member for Springfield of the DP has once again adopted a high moral tone and commented on the slip of the tongue which was made over the airwaves and about which he requested a public apology. I find it a problem because that party is a party of paradoxes. We know it claims to be liberal and non-racial and yet in the Press it is branded as racist by the very people who were excluded from its membership. It will be interesting to see whether they slip back into slot after the weekend when the party meets to review their possible membership.

*As regards the rest of the debate I should like to reprimand the CP. I was very disappointed to take cognisance of the fact that they largely concerned themselves with the election coverage. One can see there is an election in the offing, because they forgot about the film industry, they completely forgot about the radio and they actually ignored South Africa.

I am saying this because 1987 was a year of floods. That was the year in which the radio pre-eminently kept us informed on the road links and the essential, vitally important information of where food was, of what quality it was and what the state of the drinking water and rail links was. They are people with a very short memory, because they forgot that thanks to the programme Good Morning South Africa, R5 million was collected for people in the flood-ravaged areas. Were some of their voters not amongst these people? Can one trust a party with such a short memory to take over the government of the country? I do not think so.

I therefore take very great pleasure in conveying our thanks to Dr Brand Fourie, the Chairman of the Board of the SABC, and Mr Harmse and his team and congratulate them on a fine report which has been submitted to Parliament. We want to thank them for the fine work they and the members of their team have done. I should like to link up with other hon members who expressed a kind word, a word of thanks and a word of farewell to Dr Fourie, who is retiring as the chairman, for the important work he has done at the SABC.

If one could single out one aspect of his functions, I would like to mention the restructuring of the management and the implementation of new financial systems. Hon members know that it became apparent in last year’s report that there was a new approach towards management. This board deliberately aimed at having the necessary information on hand to take decisions so that it could ascertain at short notice precisely what material was on the shelf, how useful it was, when it had last been used, what it cost and, if there were losses, how great they were. In other words, at very short notice the board could react to a submission from the Corporation and take a significant financial decision. In the light of this I want to congratulate and thank Dr Fourie and Mr Harmse and his team most sincerely.

Our best wishes go with Dr Fourie on his departure. We will miss him and we want to thank him for applying his wide experience in this very important portfolio as the Chairman of the Board of the SABC.

It would, however, be inappropriate if one did not take this opportunity to congratulate a person like Prof Christo Viljoen on his appointment as chairman. One must take cognisance of the fact that he is acquainted with electronics and technology and that he is both a cultural person and an expert in the film industry—a man who will be practising both his profession and his hobby as the chairman of this board. We wish him everything of the best.

I found it very interesting to listen to the speeches of the opposition members. They contend that constituted as it is, this board does not work and that this board does not take the cultural differentiation in South Africa into account. I am now going to draw hon members’ attention for a moment to the personalities who serve on the board so that they can see how, in carrying out its statutory functions, the board provides itself with the necessary expertise to control the financial management, the infrastructure, the technology, the staff of 5 843 and the extensive assets of this Corporation.

As regards the constitution of the board I want to refer briefly to the fact that all the provinces are represented. There are experts in the fields of finance and management, art and culture and representatives of education. Let us start with Mr Norman Nossel, the chairman of Adcock/Ingram, who is an expert on art and culture. From the business sector there are Messrs Taylor, Hickling and Sloet. Then there is another art expert and medical practitioner, Dr Hesse. Then there is Mrs Mimi (Coertse) Ackermann, an opera singer and beloved art personality in Pretoria who also does important work in the regional arts councils. With regard to education there is Dr Gugushe, the retired rector of Vista in Soweto, Mr Jacobs, a school principal who is also an actor, and Mr Hemraj, an academic and educationist who is well known for his open-air programmes for young people. Then there is also the language expert Prof Merwe Scholtz, the farmer-business manager Gordon Hughes from Natal, as well as Maj Gen Van Zyl, former chaplain of the Defence Force, who is certainly used to serving all religions.

I nevertheless feel that as regards the object of the Corporation, according to section 11(c) and (d) of the Broadcasting Act, No 73 of 1976, as amended, there are problems in serving the rural areas and that specific representation could possibly also be demanded in the board. I should like to read out the relevant subsections—

In this regard hon members can see that there must be a sensitivity for the target market and that there must be expertise regarding the electronic ability of the Corporation and that there should perhaps also be room for specific representation from the rural areas. I therefore want to address a polite request to the hon the Minister to reconsider the appointment of a person from the reception areas at present experiencing deficiencies in broadcasting viewing time. The hon member for Cradock used to represent these areas and one would like to see representation for these areas reconsidered.

There is, however, a very important sound being heard in this Committee, namely that more differentiated cultural coverage is being advocated by virtually all the Houses. For that reason one takes very grateful cognisance of the language policy of the SABC in which every population group is served individually. I also want to refer specifically to the innovative simulcasts which the SABC report says is part of our future and the new video format which has also come to the fore. We want to thank the Corporation for the dubbing of programmes and what this means to all of us. I need not explain the difficult task of formulating policy to anyone in this Committee. I should like to quote James Thurber in this connection:

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whips for accommodating me and I apologise to the hon the Minister in advance for the fact that I will not be here when he responds to the debate. This is another hit and run speech as I have to be in the other place to take part in that debate.

I want to join other members of the Committee in wishing Dr Fourie well and congratulating him on a career of dedication and service to the people of this country. I have one small problem with him which I think I should just mention. At the time of the referendum in 1983 when he was ambassador in Washington he returned to South Africa to take part in the referendum campaign and to urge a yes-vote because he said that if we voted no, investments in South Africa would dry up. The reverse, in fact, was the case. It is a great pity he took that line at the time. I do not hold it against him, however. I wish him a long and happy retirement.

The hon the Minister said yesterday that, and I quote:

I want to say to the hon the Minister that it is quite correct that we do not agree. However, it is not for him to determine the ground rules. [Interjections.] It is not for him to say how I should determine my criticism of the department. Politics do not work that way. The rarefied academic atmosphere of RALF might have led him to believe that he could decide the rules, but in politics things work a little bit differently. What he has learned, however, is how to misquote.

Who’s deciding now?

No, I am not deciding. I am merely saying that each one of us will work our own way. It is not for the hon the Minister to decide how I should play the rules. He has learned to misquote. I have never said that the municipal election campaign was based on party politics, and that the campaign promoted National Party policies. What I have said, however, was that the details in the advertisements were incorrect and therefore the campaign was incompetent. In addition I said that the campaign to promote separate local authorities was an abuse of taxpayers’ money, as separate local authorities is the policy of the minority of this country, viz the NP, the CP and the AWB. [Interjections.] There is a difference. And the hon the Minister has accused me of something which I have never said. That is really an old political trick and it is something he has learned since he came to Parliament.

The hon the Minister can explain it as he wishes, and he can make the offers that he wishes but it is not the function of the Bureau to become involved in party political Press conferences like the one that was held to announce the election of the new NP leader. It is also very strange that NP members who are sitting on this committee are quoting from an unpublished document with regard to the film industry. This strengthens our suspicions about the motives of the Bureau. These are the ground rules the hon the Minister is working on, and we reject those rules because we believe that he is operating in the interest of the NP.

It is not only our perception that the Bureau works in the interest of the NP but also that of the public, particularly members of the NP and those from Schweizer-Reneke who introduced the motion at the Transvaal congress of the party asking the Government to market NP policy more effectively. [Interjections.] It does not matter, but even the Nats think that the hon the Minister is not doing a good job. [Interjections.]

The same goes for the SABC. One of the leaders of the NP who addressed a meeting in East London last night, and who spoke on corruption—we all know that the NP is soft on corruption—was reported on TV and on radio this morning. Like the Nats we also had a public meeting in Port Elizabeth last night. Regrettably that meeting was not reported on the radio or on television today. Our meeting was extremely well attended. [Interjections.] This is typical of the SABC who see it as their task to serve their NP masters.

I believe that it is corrupt for the SABC to use licence fees and advertising revenue to promote the NP at the expense of other parties. I hope that with the election that is upon us, they will give us a fair opportunity of putting our point of view during the course of the campaign. We do not want the SABC to promote us as they are doing with the NP. We simply want them to give us a fair opportunity of putting our own point of view. We have made it clear in the past that we do not want the SABC to interpret our point of view. We are quite capable of putting it ourselves. It is therefore absolutely unacceptable that they should do it.

My colleague, the hon member for Sandton, has mentioned earlier in this debate the question of our meetings of last week that were ignored by the SABC. However, each time one of the leaders of the NP appears, he is given the opportunity to put his case on television and on the radio. Mr F W de Klerk has appeared on television almost weekly during the course of the last couple of months. Our leaders have addressed meetings and they were not given the same opportunity. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to believe that the SABC is an autonomous body and therefore do not wish to get involved in a political debate between the NP and the DP.

*I want to react briefly, however, to what the hon member for Sunnyside said earlier in reaction to unequal coverage on TV. I should like to believe that the SABC is an autonomous body which is free of political manipulation so that no party can believe that it will receive coverage on television owing to its political representation.

Of course, my party is one of those which receive niggardly treatment. The hon member for Addo discussed this in detail yesterday. I want to say that there was no mention whatsoever of the LP standpoint on the economic debate which was conducted in Parliament during the Budget debate. The impression conveyed to the outside world was simply that we either had not made a contribution or that we were really irrelevant. I am not saying this because I am our chief spokesman, but people like to ask about it.

The hon member for Addo also referred yesterday to the unpleasant occurrence in many of our homes in which the TV is switched off at the end of programmes when the national anthem appears on the screen. I want to ask the hon the Minister and the SABC management what the possibilities are of playing the national anthem which is known to all Black people and accepted by them—’Nkosi Sikelel’i’Afrika!—at the end of their programmes. This would simply grant recognition to fellow South Africans.

I want to associate myself with hon members who congratulated the Board of the SABC on its sound financial condition. I know that this was not brought about overnight by a stroke of accountancy but by planning which was introduced over the years. I also want to associate myself with hon members who thanked Dr Brand Fourie for his selfless service to the country and wish him a pleasant retirement.

I want to refer to the question of concessionary TV licences. I am quoting from page 16 of the annual report on which mention is made of 136 277 social pensioners inter alia who qualify for this. I think the hon the Minister and his board should really re-examine this because many pensioners are excluded from this.

I had a query among others from a pensioner in my own town who could not understand why he did not qualify for a concessionary licence. He receives a civil pension of R331 and, because his wife does not qualify for a social pension owing to the means test, this R331 represents the only income of this household. He is willing to pay for a licence but he simply cannot afford it. It is very difficult for a 68-year-old man to understand why his neighbour, who receives a social pension exceeding R400, is granted a concessionary licence while he does not qualify for it.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that our older people are most law-abiding. I know that this old man would not like to be guilty of pirate viewing and this causes me to appeal in particular on behalf of all people who receive a civil pension. I believe it is no more than right that a financial limit be set and not simply a dividing line drawn between social and civil pensions.

I want to associate myself with hon members and congratulate the SABC and wish it well, especially with radio services. The radio is one of those means of communication which have actually been forgotten since the advent of TV.

I am thinking specifically of regional radio services, which are so popular in country districts in particular. Because of their regional orientation, these services are much more intimate. Of course, I also appreciate the financial benefit which they hold for the SABC. Now a local organisation can broadcast over its regional radio service and know that its potential buyer will listen to this.

I also want to mention that Radio South Africa has acquired considerably more listeners over the past five years—especially with regard to the Monitor programme. It is people in rural areas, who are remote from Cape Town and cannot buy a daily paper, who like listening to the parliamentary review and stay informed about affairs in this way. Many hon members also referred to Radio 2000, especially its sports and religious programmes, and in particular to Radio Pulpit. My own mother has become an enthusiastic follower of the hon member for Randburg since he has been participating in Radio Pulpit in the mornings. There are the music programmes too, but Radio 2000 is also well known for its simulcast transmissions.

I want to confine myself to Radio RSA, however, as it remains the most important service to my mind because it has to take up the cudgels on South Africa’s behalf in foreign parts. I consider this service an extremely important information base which has to promote the image of South Africa overseas. I see from the annual report that approximately 230 hours of broadcasting are done per week in various languages to Africa, the Middle and Far East, Western Europe, Britain, Canada, the USA, South America and Scandinavia. The annual report also mentions that the DX Club of Quebec nominated the French Service of Radio RSA as the best French station in the world. This is definitely an achievement of which we are all proud and I want to express the hope that Radio RSA will continue building bridges to end the estrangement between South Africa and the outside world.

In conclusion, I want to say that the hon member Dr Golden appealed here yesterday for the extension of TV transmissions to country districts and requested inter alia that TV licences be increased. I appealed earlier for pensioners to be considered. I am one of those people who believe that we already pay too much for TV licences so I want to differ with the hon member Dr Golden in this respect. I believe the SABC could save a considerable amount of money if all dubbing were discontinued. I do not believe that a single Afrikaans-speaking person, like me, would be cross or unhappy if we had to watch Miami Vice in English on TV. I think we are doing many good programmes an injustice by using Afrikaans dubbing.

Finally, I want to request the Board of the SABC to ensure that all studio audiences are not predominantly White in future. I have no personal objection to this but small children usually ask why one of us is never present. This is something which really deserves attention. The whole of South Africa watches the box and I believe that all people should be treated on an equal basis on the box.

Mr Chairman, we are facing a general election in South Africa, an election which is going to be of crucial importance to every political party and also to our country. In a sense the election campaign has already begun, and it is undoubtedly true that the SABC, as a news medium, is going to play an important role in this election. However, it is also true that the SABC unfortunately has a track record of favouring the NP as opposed to the other parties in South Africa. We have referred to this in the past, and just allow me to mention a few recent examples for hon members, and particularly for the hon member for Sunnyside, in order to substantiate my view. In the recent TV programme on partition, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was used to explain partition, thus making use of an old political mechanism of setting up one’s own Aunt Sallies and then knocking them down oneself. [Interjections.] The CP is extending a friendly invitation to the SABC to give us an opportunity to discuss and criticise the Government’s policy of power-sharing on television, as they gave the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the opportunity to discuss partition. [Interjections.]

Secondly, during last year’s festivities commemorating the Great Trek, there were virtually daily television reports of the FAK’s festival, and for all practical purposes nothing about the Volkswag festival. Surely that cannot be denied. Hon members need only check the record to realise the truth of my statement. As far as the main festivities on 16 December are concerned, again full prominence was given to the FAK festival, even though six times more people were present at the Volkswag festival at Donkerhoek. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, as far as the results of the local government election are concerned—and I am saying this with respect to them—here and there the SABC even expressly misled the voters. Let me give just one example of the voters having been misled or of the dissemination of disinformation. Let me refer to Roodepoort. The result was announced as if Roodepoort, after the town council election there, had been won back from the CP and had again become an NP seat. What, however, is the state of affairs? Roodepoort at the parliamentary level and Roodepoort at local government level are two totally different areas. Use was made of the name “Roodepoort”, however, to mislead the voters into thinking that the CP had lost that seat in Parliament. [Interjections.]

Today I want to ask the SABC for an undertaking. As an officially registered political party we are asking for nothing more than fair and just treatment. [Interjections.] In fact, we demand what is our due, ie a fair amount of time, an opportunity to put our case to the South African electorate.

You people get more than that! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I think that this debate proves specifically what is taking place here. All the political parties, except the NP, are defending the SABC. Does that not specifically prove what this is all about? [Interjections.]

The hon member Mrs Jager referred to the SABC Board, but let us respectfully ask one another how many SABC board members are members of the NP and how many are members of other political parties. Let us ask a further question, perhaps a sensitive question, about how many members of the SABC board are members of the Afrikaner Broederbond. [Interjections.] Let the hon the Minister answer that question for us. Then we shall see how one-sided the situation is. I think the time has come, in the interests of democracy in South Africa, for an ombudsman to be appointed for SABC-TV, in the person of a retired judge.

Then you would complain about him too.

I am speaking to the hon the Minister, not to the hon member for Germiston District. Political parties must then have an opportunity to submit complaints against the SABC to this ombudsman about unfair treatment or conduct. The report of this SABC ombudsman must be tabled in Parliament annually for discussion and to enable the hon the Minister to answer questions so that other political parties can also have an opportunity to discuss it.

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

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I do not have the time.

Let me refer to the monthly publication of the Bureau for Information entitled RSA Policy Review. [Interjections.] In this booklet, which is published with taxpayers’ money, only the Government’s views are reflected. Never are the views of other political parties reflected. I am now referring to all political parties. [Interjections.] If the hon member is telling me—as he has just done—that we are not part of the Government, he knows as much about democracy as the man in the moon. [Interjections.]

Surely that is not tenable; it is totally unacceptable that in a democracy other parties—here I am referring, in particular, to the policies of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly— do not even get a single opportunity to write one small paragraph in this book, RSA Policy Review. Surely that is a reasonable request. The NP says it wants to be known as a fair government, one that wants to broaden the base of democracy. They are narrowing it, restricting it and smothering democracy, because they give no other political party—and I am not even talking about the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly—an opportunity to put its case in this official document. [Interjections.]

Today I want to put a few questions to the hon the Minister, and I want to ask him to answer these questions for us.

How many copies of RSA Policy Review are printed and distributed monthly? What are the costs of the printing and distribution? How many subscribers are there to this publication? Lastly, I want to ask him a reasonable question. I do not think that in any other Western democratic country taxpayers’ money would ever be used solely for the unilateral presentation of the Government’s standpoint. It is a fair legal principle— the audi alteram partem rule—to give other parties an opportunity to put their case too, and we should like to make use of that.

Lastly I want to give hon members an example of blatant disinformation by the hon the Minister’s relevant department. I am now referring to the SA Digest of 28 October 1988. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into this in detail, but in this official publication, the SA Oorsig/SA Digest the following information is presented to the voters as being the truth. With reference to the Transvaal the following is stated:

Then it is stated, still referring to the Transvaal:

[Interjections.] Then the hon the Minister’s official publication, for which he must accept ministerial responsibility, says the following:

I focused the attention of the CP’s secretary-in-chief on this absolutely false, incorrect, disin-formational report in an official Government publication. The CP’s secretary-in-chief wrote a letter to Mr Stewart, and I want to pay tribute to Mr Stewart for having rectified the matter. The point I am making, however, is that if, after this matter had been brought to Mr Stewart’s attention, the CP, through its head office, had not reacted, these untruths would not only have been disseminated in South Africa, but also abroad, because this publication is also read abroad. The hon the Minister’s department therefore tells untruths, not only in South Africa, but also to people overseas. I am afraid that the hon the Minister must accept responsibility for this publication. [Interjections.]

Let me tell hon members how the matter was rectified, something for which we are grateful. There is also a little white lie involved, and I want to quote from the South African Digest of 13 January, 1989.

†But, Sir—and that is my point—they were published as if they were the final results.

It was a question of setting matters straight.

Matters were set straight after we requested it, Sir. [Interjections.] I am telling the hon the Minister that he must accept ministerial responsibility for a completely incorrect—I am saying deliberately incorrect—image that was created not only in South Africa, but also abroad. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we have probably just listened to the first election speech in the Losberg constituency. I do want to agree with the hon member for Losberg on one point. I think there is a need for certain discussion programmes and I am going to give more attention to this in a moment. However, one of the needs which specifically exists, and I hope the hon the Minister can convey this to the SABC, is a discussion programme in which the three right-wing leaders— the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche and Dr Carel Boshoff—will participate so that they can spell out the borders of the new “volkstaat” for us once and for all. I think the SABC can make a fine contribution for us in that regard so that the voters can have clarity on this matter.

I now want to discuss a serious matter in connection with the SABC. Because this debate also concerns the running of the most powerful medium in our country, namely the SABC’s radio and TV services, I should also like to associate myself with the congratulations of everyone on the fine financial achievement of the Corporation during the past year. I should also like to associate myself with all the hon members who congratulated Dr Fourie, who is retiring, and his successor, who has been promoted. However, I hope hon members will not take it amiss if I dwell for a moment on the person of Dr Brand Fourie whom I have known very well over the years. I also hope he will not take it amiss if I tell a story which is very appropriate to today’s debate—in which we must praise the SABC for its financial management—and which will give us a glimpse into the way of life, dedication and economy awareness of the selfsame Dr Fourie.

Early in his career Dr Fourie was a private secretary to the late Jan Smuts—something which few hon members will realise. He was with him in Britain while he was a member of the British War Cabinet and was labelled and idealised by many colleagues as the ideal public servant. He has such a wealth of knowledge of the political history of this country that his adventures and experiences, as well as his knowledge of all our country’s leaders, dare not be lost. By the way, the only person he did not serve under was Louis Botha. I feel that he should document this himself and I understand that someone else is doing it on his instructions. However, let me get to my story.

I had the privilege to be the late Mr John Vorster’s acting press secretary during his visit to Vienna for the discussions with the then American Vice-President, Mr Walter Mondale. One of my duties was to make the arrangements with the representatives of the local media who would accompany Mr Vorster. I handed the list of names to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs—the selfsame Dr Fourie—who was obviously responsible for the arrangements for accommodation and so on. A few days later I visited him in his office and was astounded to find him sitting behind his desk making calculations. What it amounted to was that if each of the media organisations were to pay a certain amount for the visit, he would virtually be able to recover the air fares for the State. I could not believe that he wanted the Press to subsidise the State, but I would like to assure hon members that it was with great difficulty and through the eventual intercession of the Prime Minister that I finally persuaded him to abandon that plan. That was the kind of official Dr Fourie was; when he could save a cent for the State or an organisation he was working for, he did so. For that reason I do not find it strange that the SABC could convert its losses into a profit in the year under review.

I should like to address that task of the SABC which is intimately concerned with politics. It is the task of the SABC to keep all communities informed by means of its news broadcasts and its division for public affairs.

These organisations place a particular premium on the application of its policy as laid down in 1988 by the Board of the SABC. The news division and the public affairs division have succeeded in a balanced way in keeping the various communities informed in a reliable, balanced and continuous manner of news events on the local, national and international scene. In this regard the demands of the times and the country’s interests—I want to make it clear that I am referring to the country’s interests and not the interests of political parties—were taken properly into account.

I find it astounding that hon members of this House can accuse the SABC of partiality and maliciousness and I should like to explain why. In this connection I am associating myself with the hon member for Sunnyside. Last year I proved on the basis of an independent survey undertaken by the university in Grahamstown that the NP had more reason to complain about the proportional amount of time devoted to NP policy and speakers than any other political party in this Parliament. I therefore assume that the hon member for Losberg was actually asking this afternoon that the NP should be given more time than the CP when he appealed for a fair amount of time.

That cannot be true!

However, the difference is that we do not complain about it. We do not grumble about it either. We do not complain about it because our messages are purer, clearer and far more acceptable than those of the Official Opposition and the Progocrats. If one’s message is not strong enough, and is based on emotion and bankrupt politics, it is so easy to blame the messenger rather than oneself.

The hon member for Johannesburg North made a speech a while ago and I challenge any hon member to make a positive news report out of what he said here this afternoon. Is that not clear enough?

The SABC is, after all, simply a medium. It can only convey the contents of what is given to it. It does not make news! It disseminates news. If what the opposition parties say is not newsworthy or of general interest, that is really not the SABC’s fault. After all, the governors of this country obviously take decisions which …

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, I do not have time now.

After all, the governors of this country obviously take decisions which affect every community at some stage or other. The decisions of the own affairs Ministers’ Councils about their own communities are news. The task of a news organisation is to inform the various communities, because their weal and woe may be affected by this. Let us take today’s debate. I have just done so. Can hon members tell me what newsworthy remarks have been made in this House today by the naggers and complainers who voiced their criticism so freely? [Interjections.] We must also be realistic and retain perspective in our politicking.

This brings me to another matter, namely the presentation of political debates on television or on radio. According to the SABC’s annual report, it welcomes the presentation of political debates because this will bring the viewing public closer to the political issues of the day. In this connection the so-called historic debate between our hon leader-in-chief and future State President and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly was a step in the right direction. [Interjections.]

I also think that the recent programme in which the hon member for Randburg replied to questions put by representatives from the media was of great value. Owing to the nature of the medium I could, however, only watch the eggdance once and I am sorry that I could not see it a few more times to ascertain what the hon member was trying to say. However, he deserves congratulations because this was probably one of the best exercises in evasion I have ever been privileged to see. Such programmes are of particular value to the viewing public, because South Africa has a right to be informed—also about the inabilities of certain political parties.

I can think, for example, of quite a number of possibilities for political debates on television and radio. A debate between the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon member for Soutpansberg and any hon member of the old party with the new hat can be of great value to us. The nature and the form of such debates will, however, have to be determined in such a way that the interests of the country can be served in a balanced way and cannot be abused to launch emotional attacks.

Discussion programmes in which members of political parties clearly convey their standpoints are also an interesting possibility which can be investigated. I can imagine that the DP’s standpoint on security could be very well conveyed jointly by the hon members for Constantia and Yeoville and the hon member for Claremont, who will apparently be one of their members soon.

For the sake of greater clarity the three leaders of the Progocrats can, for example, each spell out their policy with regard to membership, or otherwise, of their party, in a joint programme. We will encounter very interesting standpoints there. In this way our public will be able to take proper cognisance of the chaos prevailing in this new party.

I should like to conclude my contribution by telling the SABC that they are doing well in performing their task of keeping the public informed while at the same time serving the more general interests of the country. This organisation is facing new challenges and in the years ahead it will have to break new ground to meet the information needs of the public. I think for example that urgent attention must be given to ways in which the voting public can be even more fully informed on parliamentary matters. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with all the good wishes expressed to Dr Brand Fourie as well as his successor.

I do not think that what we have seen in this debate during the past few days is anything but normal fraternal strife. It is striking, especially with reference to what the previous hon speaker said, that even in an open debate such as this one, no provision is made for us. During our debate here, that hon member requested that only the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and someone from the DP and CP should conduct a debate, here in South Africa, where we hear about diversity and the complex society every day! Here where we are addressing the crux of matters, there are still appeals for only Whites to have the privilege of conducting that debate. [Interjections.]

Fortunately it is clear to me, because I tried to unravel it. I do not say this with hatred or with thoughts of revenge, and I want hon members to take this in good part, but I tried to understand and could not but conclude that there was no difference between White thinking and M-Net, because both require a decoder. It is difficult for us to understand what is said here, because we remain excluded from the whole process and I think that when we conduct a debate next time, we must talk to one another, not past one another.

Let me say, however, that I cannot but pay tribute to the people of the radio. These are people who ensure at all times that really good programmes are provided for the public. There are topical competitions on radio, for example, in which high school pupils and sometimes toddlers compete with one another on things that really matter, and not what the CP or the NP or the DP is going to say. These programmes involve things that they can do at home as recreation or exercise, and other pupils can listen to them. This is educational and it makes up part of the syllabus. I think we should pay more attention to programmes of this kind on television.

In my opinion TV is too violent. There is too much blood and thunder on TV. I even have to make my children leave the room when the news headlines are shown. One of my children once said: “We have to go now; there comes the blue film.” Why must we always look at violent unrest that is taking place overseas? Is TV conditioning us and showing us what kind of life we should expect? I shall never forget a scene of unrest in a country in North Africa in which a policeman lying on the ground was bombarded with stones and goodness knows what. We were shown that, and I want to know why unrest in other countries can be shown, but not our own unrest. If we may not broadcast this kind of propaganda in terms of the emergency measures, I do not want to see the violence that takes place abroad either. It is bad enough to know that we are living in a bloodthirsty world.

A matter that is very important to me is that in drawing up sports programmes, the myth exists that only the SA Rugby Board’s rugby is good enough to be shown on television. How many thousands of television licences are not sold to people who play rugby for SARU, for example? If their final, which takes place once a year, is broadcast, it is done on certain conditions. Why? What is the SABC afraid of? Are they afraid to show the world that regardless of the fact that we have the absolute minimum of facilities, we can still practise a sport properly and according to the rules?

If I remember correctly, last year’s final would have been broadcast on condition that it was played at Newlands. Why can it not be played in the Vygiekraal Stadium or in the Avonwood Park Stadium where the facilities consist of the absolute minimum? Are they afraid that if SARU’s matches are broadcast, people will see the enormous backlogs in South Africa? We must move away from the attitude that if something is not the way we want it, it cannot take place at all.

It looks as though people are afraid to include any degree of religiosity in any programme shown on TV—whether in English, Afrikaans or whatever language. We can see how McGyver and all the other characters fight like mad, irrespective of whom they are fighting. It does not matter whether a White man is hitting a Black man or vice versa. It is good enough. That reminds me that during the sixties we people of colour could not see the James Bond film, Dr No. Now it is freely available. The only reason that we could not see it, was that Odd Jobs had hit a White man, and at that stage it was not permissible for a Coloured person to hit a White man. That would ostensibly incite violence, or show the so-called “Hotnot” how he should hit a White man.

Now it looks as though the SABC is afraid of broadcasting scenes which involve religion. Why are there so few religious stories on TV? I am no longer interested in McGyver. Now there is a new programme, Highway Patrol, which has excited interest among the children. It is a boring programme. I cannot pay for a TV licence to watch all that rubbish. Give us better programmes. Give us programmes that can enrich our souls. Stop dishing up this rubbish which is bought at great expense overseas.

I have said previously in this House that we have enough talented people. At that stage Shaken Surtie-Richards was not even as famous as she is now. We can produce our own programmes just as well. If the hon the Minister does a little more groundwork, he will discover that there are numerous talented people among the public. We can produce our own films locally. That is one way in which we can bring the various South African peoples closer to one another. One can show, for example, how Coloured, Black, Indian and White children socialise. After all, there are often youth camps where the children have discussions over weekends. There is a deafening silence on the part of TV and radio services, however. In this way we can initiate better inter-group relations. The hon the Minister must start thinking about that, and he must ask the people who draw up his programmes to show this kind of thing. It does not matter whether or not the CP likes it; this is where the future of South Africa lies. The sooner we get the people of the country used to it, the better for all of us.

Mr Chairman, if I counted correctly approximately 37 or 38 members had turns to speak in this debate, and certainly many more than 100 different subjects were raised. I want to thank the hon member for Macassar for his contribution, in which he covered quite a wide field.

This confronts me with a quite formidable task of replying to all these points. Actually it is impossible, and therefore I want to apologise in advance to hon members who participated in the debate if I do not specifically deal with some of the points they mentioned. I really want to make this request to hon members. If there is a specific point to which I did not give them a reply, whether because of the shortage of time or possibly by way of an oversight, all they need do is pick up the telephone and ask us about the subject they raised. We shall then gladly give them a reply on the specific point.

First of all I should like to address a few subjects that are of more general interest. I want to begin with a point that was raised by various people, including the hon members for Diamant and Sandton, who referred to the former Director-General, Mr Riaan Eksteen, and said that he had also made a contribution to the present prosperity of the SABC, and asked why no credit was being given to him.

I want to place the following on record. Last year, early in the debate, I said inter alia the following:

In other words, I have already given him personal credit. It is not true that everything he did at the SABC was always wrong. He certainly did many good things too, and for that I have already given him credit in the past.

However, it is also true that not everything done in his time was necessarily his idea. In other words, we cannot say today that Good Morning South Africa or Radio 2000 were necessarily Mr Eksteen’s ideas. They were team efforts which got off the ground in his time. It is true. [Interjections.] We want to make the point that we do give him credit, but if hon members were to examine the annual report of the SABC, they would see that the structure is not such, nor was it ever such, that credit is given to individual persons for certain things because the entire operation of the SABC is a team effort. [Interjections.] For example, since we are now taking leave of one of the most competent people, Dr Brand Fourie, we thank him in general for the contribution he made, but we do not state that he was responsible for certain specific things, because they are all team efforts.

There is no failure to recognise the contribution he made, but this still does not detract from the fact that it was necessary at that stage to get rid of him. Hon members must bear in mind that long before Mr Eksteen was discharged, the Board of the SABC had begun to control matters with a far tighter rein. It was in fact in this process that conflict arose between the Board and Mr Eksteen. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue.

Allow me to close the debate on Mr Eksteen, as far as I am concerned, with the following. I took over the portfolio shortly before this matter came to a head. I satisfied myself that whatever the political background and the political motives may have been, there were quite sufficient grounds, owing to considerations other than political considerations, for the decision which the Board of the SABC took. Even if there had been no political considerations, the outcome would have been the same.

So! There were political considerations.

No, I am not saying that. We all know that at a certain stage there was political unhappiness, but apart from any possible political consideration, there was sufficient other considerations to justify the step which the Board of the SABC took. I am quite convinced of that. Consequently there was no small-mindedness and no pettiness in this entire connection.

I now want to come to another subject, namely the SABC’s approach to political reporting, in other words the way in which various political parties are treated. Many complaints came from all quarters about alleged bias. It is the policy of the SABC to try to reflect honest and accurate news coverage of events and to deal fairly and justly with all parties. As one of the speakers on the Government side said, however, it is a fact that all parties, including the NP, are dissatisfied with the coverage they are receiving, which surely proves that the matter must be satisfactory. There is no political party that one can satisfy completely, because every political party sees matters from a subjective point of view.

This brings me to the question of how the SABC ought to deal with the coming election. We must take cognisance of the fact that the coming election is going to make heavy demands on the SABC.

†Over and above the normal problems there is the problem of three Houses of Parliament holding an election at the same time, which means that about 305 constituencies will be represented, and which means approximately 1 000 candidates will be participating in this election. It will be almost impossible to give television coverage to all the candidates. If one should give coverage to all of them, it would be of insignificant value. [Interjections.] The point that I want to make is that we will have to sit down and work out a strategy in order to do justice to each of the parties, not necessarily to the individual candidates. I think there is room for consultation and co-operation between the SABC and the political parties in this respect in order to try to work out some sort of agreement on how this should be approached.

There are a variety of approaches that have been suggested. One approach states that all parties are equal at the beginning of an election because in principle none of them has any votes. However, that would mean that a one-man party should get the same coverage as a party that has governed the country for 40 years. All the crank parties should then get the same attention as the major serious parties. Therefore that approach is not feasible, and I am not aware of it being seriously followed anywhere.

Then there is the approach which dictates that coverage should be given proportionally, based on the number of votes that a party got in the previous election. However, this would have left the CP in a rather queer situation at the beginning of the 1987 election, because the previous election was the one in 1981. The CP did not exist at that time. They did not get one single vote, so according to that approach they should not have gotten one minute on television. Therefore this approach is also not sufficient.

There is also the approach that a party should be allocated time on television proportional to the number of candidates that represent that party. In other words, the proportion will be based on the number of candidates that participated up to a certain level in an election. That would mean that a party—for instance in the House of Assembly—that spends R80 000 on deposits which it knows it will never get back, will probably get the same representation on TV as another party that is serious about their participation in an election.

One can never get that time back.

Yes, that is the problem. One can cause the deposit to be forfeited, but unfortunately one cannot take back the time. In other words, I am merely mentioning all the various problems with which one is faced. To me it seems fair to say—and I think this is something one will have to consider—that the NP, if one may consider the situation of the NP as an example, must defend itself to the left, against the DP, or whatever party there may be in that position in the election, and it must defend itself to the right. [Interjections.] The arguments are not the same. It must even defend itself against parties of the other Houses, which in turn have other arguments. In other words, because it is the governing party, the NP must defend itself against onslaughts from various directions. It must therefore advance various sets of arguments because there are various points of attack. That is why we shall have to give urgent thought to this matter. The SABC is in the process of doing that.

I now want to come to a few other subjects. For example there was the question of the sequence in which people were asked to contribute during the comment stage—I think the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke mentioned this, and I think the hon member for Addo also made a point in this regard. In fact the hon member for Addo made a very good point in this regard and said that the LP, because it was the second largest party in Parliament, ought to receive second priority. [Interjections.] I think that is a good point. Perhaps the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke and the hon member for Addo should get together for a change and decide how we should actually do it. [Interjections.] As a general rule one can in fact say that the party that is the target of criticism at that moment must be afforded an opportunity to make a reply at the end of that discussion. [Interjections.] I think that is a fair standpoint. It is not necessarily always the NP. Because that party is under attack and on the defensive, it ought to have an opportunity to make a reply. As I have said, it will be applicable to different people in different situations.

I shall have to make haste in order to finish on time. I think I shall at this stage rather try to react individually to some of the hon members and to reply as well as possible to the points they made. Yesterday the hon member for Springs replied effectively to various CP speakers. He also made the point that the Bureau for Information should second officials abroad. This is indeed a point worth while following up, because the broader the perspective of the officials of the Bureau, the better it will be for the interests of the Bureau and this country. That is why we shall pursue this idea. However, it is not something which can simply be done; it has financial implications and money is extremely scarce.

He also asked whether it was not time the Bureau was upgraded into a full-scale department. An establishment investigation into this matter is being carried out by the Commission for Administration which has almost reached its final stage, and once this investigation has been disposed of it will be much easier to form an opinion about this matter. I think the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke also referred to it. We shall then be in a better position to judge whether it is justified.

The hon member Mr Douw had two turns to speak. I am now dealing with his first one. He raised quite a number of points. In fact he raised many good points and I am sorry that I do not have the time to react to the merit of those points.

The one point I do want to object to— the hon member for Addo will know about this because I have spoken to him about this before—is that at one stage a report appeared in the newspapers according to which I had ostensibly participated in the same conference as a member of the ANC in Athens in 1982 or 1983. [Interjections.] That is not true, however. It is a misunderstanding, and I think …

[Inaudible.]

No, he was not. No one from the ANC was present on that occasion at all.

And your statement about Swapo?

I do not know what that hon member is talking about now. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that I did write a letter to Vrye Weekblad, which they published and in which the matter was rectified. I just want to get that factual untruth …

[Inaudible.]

Unfortunately I cannot accept responsibility for that. The fact of the matter is that if one goes back to the realities one will merely find that there was a person who had in fact been a member of the ABC previously, but who at that stage had already broken with the ANC several years before and who in fact, following that conference, came back to South Africa and settled here and threw in his lot with Black politics in South Africa on a positive level. [Interjections]

It was therefore a former ANC member.

It was therefore an ex-ANC member, but at that stage he was not connected to the ANC at all. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Douw said that the Bureau’s publications, and particularly its regional publications, should be used for communication between population groups. He referred to The Caret, which is distributed only among the Coloured people. That is true. There are publications which are aimed at communities to serve the interests of those communities, but there are also other publications, for example Southern Africa Today and to an increasing extent, too, South African Panorama which, across the dividing lines in fact, is keeping people informed about other population groups.

The hon member for Umhlanga referred to the financial position of the SABC and he did so exceptionally well. I thank him for that.

He also expressed concern about the ever-growing dependence of the SABC on advertising revenue, as opposed to licence revenue. This is a matter which is also considered in a serious light by the SABC, but which is difficult to rectify without sudden dramatic increases in the television licence fees. It is therefore a difficult problem, but we are bearing it in mind.

He also asked what the situation was in connection with the monthly payment of licence fees. The SABC has informed me that they have already worked out the matter, but that at this stage a computer programme to make this possible is still receiving attention. Consequently it will probably be possible, one of these days, to do it in this way.

The hon member for Diamant made a good speech. I have already dealt with his point concerning Mr Eksteen.

He also said that the SABC was being misused politically. [Interjections.] I want to deny that vehemently, but it is an argument which I think is as old as the debate on broadcasting, and one which will probably continue as long as there is a Minister of Broadcasting. [Interjections.] We shall have this discussion in this debate every year. This does not mean that we must not have that discussion. Good points are raised.

Even though one cannot react to all these points today, cognisance is taken of them by me as the responsible Minister and also by the senior officials of the SABC. I can guarantee hon members that those people are sensitive to this kind of argument …

And to the truth. [Interjections.]

And to the truth. The people of the SABC are really striving to give an honest reflection of what is happening and of political arguments. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Sandton referred to the meeting of the DP in Cape Town and it is true that from a publicity point of view this would have been a wonderful occasion for the DP. However, from a news point of view there was very little new that was said by the leaders in the line of policy for instance that had not been said during the previous few days. [Interjections.] Well, the point is that after they had had their congress, how much could they in fact have had? An SABC reporter was present at the meeting, but the cameras were not there because there was visual material in abundance of the DP and its whole foundation process which had been recorded over the previous few days. Therefore to see the DP in action was not news at that time. However, in the eventuality that something newsworthy came out of it a reporter was in fact present at the meeting. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sandton brought the case of Louis Motors and Mr Kirby into the debate yesterday and I thank him for making that documentation available to me. I hope he received it back in good order. The situation there is that long negotiations took place between Mr Kirby and the SABC. After a statement by an employee of the SABC, talks were once more held which ended in a statement by the SABC, saying that they dissociated themselves fully from that statement made by the employee. The SABC as far as possible wanted to settle this whole question amicably. Even when Mr Kirby went to the Press again after that statement, the SABC responded with a statement that they were not interested in thrashing this case out in public and that they would rather prefer to continue negotiations in private with Mr Kirby, which would then be in the best interests of the particular programme, the SABC and of the whole matter as such. Therefore it is unfortunate that Mr Kirby took this course, but unfortunately today I cannot respond fully as regards this issue. It is a much more complicated matter and we do not have the time to go into all those details. However, we have taken note and in due course we will once again be in touch with the hon member for Sandton.

*The hon member Dr Golden spoke about Radio 2000 and asked for particulars in connection with the closing down of transmitters. What happened here was that at the time Radio 2000 was introduced, several transmitters of the previous Springbok Radio Service were still operational. The transmissions from Radio 2000 were relayed through these transmitters. As those Springbok Radio transmitters were then closed down, some people unfortunately stopped receiving the service. We are still looking into the whole question of Radio 2000. The same reply also applies to the hon member Mrs Jager. We are still looking into the whole question of our service to the rural areas. It is difficult to argue the matter in full here, but hon members may rest assured that there is great sensitivity in regard to this whole matter.

The hon nominated member Dr Golden also said that the people in the rural areas were complaining because they had to pay the same licence fees, although they received far fewer services. The fact of the matter is that the SABC has identified certain services as national services, which it undertakes to provide country-wide as well as possible within its means. These services are TV1, a Black TV2 or TV3 television service, Radio RSA and then regional services covering the entire country, even though it may not be the same one. However there are certain other services, for example TV4 and Radio 2000, which are quite simply operated on an economic basis. In other words, the licence fees are calculated for those primary national services and the remainder, such as TV4, are bonuses which the people receive without paying for them. A long argument can be conducted on this issue, but time is rather short.

The question was also asked whether the Government could not contribute to the costs of services in the rural areas. We are living in extremely sensitive economic times, and too many demands are already being made on the Exchequer. We shall simply have to see whether we cannot do this in some other way.

He also asked for a slight upward adjustment of licence fees. The hon member Mr Douw objected to that but it is one of the items which are being considered.

†The hon member Mr Seedat made a very good contribution for which I thank him. He asked for equitable time for the two Houses, Indian programmes on a regular basis and for more time to be allotted to Radio Lotus for the parliamentary review. All these are looked at sympathetically. He apologised for not being here today.

He also asked for a campaign similar to the municipal campaign last year to encourage people to register for the coming elections. Such a programme is in fact under consideration. However, if it is undertaken, it will be undertaken by the Department of Home Affairs, because that is the line function department regarding elections in this case. We will of course advise and assist them, but they will be the line functionaries for any such campaign.

*The hon member for Claremont tendered his apology for not being able to be here, but I see he is here now. [Interjections.] He made a lot of statements, but it was difficult to find anything really tangible in what he said, because it consisted of generalities. One of the things he said was that the SABC and the Bureau for Information had sided against the majority. I can give him the assurance that neither the SABC nor the Bureau for Information is on anyone’s side. In any event the Bureau for Information, and this also applies to the SABC, is on the side of reasonable people who would like to see a reasonable solution without violence in this country. The majority are those people who want to see a solution without violence in this country. We are on the side of those people. We are trying to find a solution to this country’s problems through discussion and negotiation based on reasonableness and a peaceful development. We are on the side of those people, and those people are not a minority in this country.

†I have already referred to the hon member for Addo, but he made the point that the policies of the Ministers’ Councils should be portrayed by the SABC and by the Bureau. I consider it a good point and we will look into that.

*I have also referred to other points which he made, such as his point on Die Stem. It is a rather complicated matter which I do not want to deal with now because it would require too much time.

I have already replied in part to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke. In respect of the film Back to Freedom, I want to say that this is also a long and complicated story. I cannot reply fully in this regard now. But I want to invite him to come and discuss the matter with me in detail if he feels unhappy about it. As far as I am concerned it was not a secret project at all and it was done on a reasonably open basis. There was the occasional difference of opinion, as in any business transaction. However, it was dealt with in the ordinary way, just as other co-productions, for example Funny People II, were dealt with. Quite a lot was said on the CP side about the Day of the Vow festivals. We as politicians placed the SABC, which tries to be objective, in a tremendously difficult situation in that we were unable to agree, on such a sensitive matter as a cultural festival, to keep it a cultural festival without allowing politics to creep in. This placed the SABC in a very difficult position.

However, to say now, on the basis of the attendance at Donkerhoek compared to the attendance at the Voortrekker Monument, that the one was more important than the other, is an over-simplification. The SABC had to decide what to broadcast and the FAK is the official cultural body to which numerous cultural organisations are affiliated. That is why the SABC considered this to be the official festival. [Interjections.] It was also said, however, that the news value should be taken into consideration. That was not always precisely foreseeable. It was a difficult situation. I do not have the time to go into this any further, but with reference to the statement made by the hon member that there were 60 000 people at Donkerhoek …

Beeld said so.

As far as I know the 60 000 people were there while the leader of the AWB was talking. Afterwards there were no longer 60 000. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke that there is a reasonable explanation for the case of the Trichardt diary, which is a matter we would do well to discuss. As I invited the hon member for Johannesburg North, I also invite him to come and discuss the opinion polls with me. He stated very constructive points in the debate, and I should like to take the discussion with him further since we do not have enough time to do so now.

Time is catching up on me. The hon member for Sunnyside made a good speech on the time spent on the various parties during the previous election and on the diversity of needs and programmes.

The hon member for Matroosfontein spoke twice and made a good contribution. He indicated that the Bureau’s campaign on the municipal election was a great success. I agree with him.

But he could not win!

I want to tell the hon member for Addo, who also discussed that matter, that naturally the Bureau does not claim the credit for every person who was able to vote. We therefore do not want to say that it was thanks to us that there was a 70% percentage poll in Uitenhage. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that the awareness campaign on the elections and the details were undoubtedly intensified. We made it our task to encourage people to go and vote. Hon members also worked towards that end. Ultimately the people did go and vote. Let us therefore thank one another for the share we had in the success. The Bureau, with its publicity campaign, does not claim all the credit. [Interjections.] We generously acknowledge the part played by others.

†Unfortunately I have to go very quickly. The hon member for Springfield referred to the question on the death of Mr Pillay.

*Initially it was reported that Mr Sidney Pillay had died. That was correct. Unfortunately a photograph of Mr Dennis Pillay was published. As far as I know, Mr Sidney Pillay is dead and buried. Unfortunately the wrong photograph was shown on television.

In connection with the David Hall-Green incident, I should like to say the following. The SABC viewed that matter in a very serious light. †We cannot tolerate racist attitudes from people holding such sensitive positions. The situation was analysed very carefully. Mr Hall-Green was reprimanded. Mr Hall-Green—this is my view and that of the committee—is a person with a very positive orientation. This remark was totally out of character. It was interpreted in the way in which it came over. The fact that Mr Hall-Green was reprimanded but maintained in service, is because of his inherent positive orientation. Therefore I can assure hon members that the SABC reacted with sensitivity in this regard. I am satisfied that we do not harbor racist feelings.

*The hon member Mr Abram raised good points. He also apologised for not being able to be here. Unfortunately I shall not come to what he said.

†I would like to come back to the hon member for Johannesburg North. He blamed me for saying that he had characterised the municipal election campaign as a National Party issue. However, on 24 April he said the following:

*With these words he wrote off the entire effort of the Bureau during the municipal elections as being nothing but NP political propaganda. It is that kind of reaction which makes us completely despondent.

†Yesterday I said we must sit down and define the ground rules. I did not say, “These are the ground rules.” I said, “Let us talk about the ground rules.” The hon member did not listen. Maybe he did not read my speech, or perhaps he cannot read. I do not know what his problem is. If he reads my Hansard, he will know that this is what I said. Let us sit down and define the ground rules, because we cannot have a fruitful debate without consensus.

*My time is running out, and I want to thank the hon members once again for their contributions. Unfortunately I cannot reply to everything. I shall not try to reply to the hon members for Losberg, Germiston District and Overvaal now. In conclusion, however, I want to thank all the NP members as well as the other members—the LP and other parties in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates—for their contributions.

†All those hon members have contributed in the past three days to the workings of democracy by sometimes giving me a hard time and by giving us a bit of light relief from time to time.

*I want to thank all the hon members for their participation in the debate. I am convinced that South Africa is standing on the threshold of great things. If, in the spirit in which we co-operate with one another here, we can involve the general population which is not present here in the same way and co-operate in the same way, even if it is in a quarrelsome way, we are going to make a great country of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to welcome the hon the Acting Minister to this Committee. We can give him the assurance that matters are dealt with here in a peaceful, productive and industrious manner—I am referring to the joint committee. Things did not go very peacefully in the public committee during the time of the hon the Minister’s predecessor, and he at least has the advantage that he does not need to do a great deal in order to improve on the achievements of his predecessors.

The annual report of the department for the year ended 31 December 1988 was made available just two days ago. This is insufficient time in which to gauge its merits. Nevertheless, it may be confidently stated that in accordance with what we have become used to, it is a comprehensive and thoroughly prepared document containing interesting statistics and reading matter.

I notice a few “old Tukkie” ties in the photographs, and I believe that this fact probably contributed to the successes indicated during the year under review. I should like the hon the Minister to take note of the fact that certain senior men in his department are old Tukkies. [Interjections.]

We are sorry that we have had to bid farewell to Dr Piet van der Merwe as Director-General. The CP endorses the fine words that have been written about him in para 1.41. We are particularly appreciative of the competent manner in which he protected the incompetent and superficial former hon Minister.

We welcome Advocate Fourie as the new Director-General. I met him in the joint committee which investigated the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, and my admiration for him and his thorough knowledge of this field of study, as well as for the patience which he displayed towards hon members, has grown. We wish him and the officials of his department, who work in a sensitive field, continued success.

In so far as the former Minister’s sudden departure is concerned, we in the CP would be dishonest if we were to shed a tear at his departure.

[Inaudible.]

The CP suggested last year that his salary be reduced to R1 owing to his inability to perform his task properly. We were proved correct; in fact, South Africa and the Cabinet have done without him for four months now, without a Minister having been permanently appointed in his place. He told the hon member for Lichtenburg ever so boldly in December 1988 that he should not demand his—Mr Du Plessis’ resignation; he would come and sort him out here in Parliament. The hon member for Lichtenburg is here, he is waiting for him; but he is waiting in vain for Piet!

The report reflects a successful year. Unemployment among Whites, Coloureds and Asians decreased from 59 191 to 50 752, that is to say, by 14,3%, and among Blacks, by 5,8% from January to September 1988.

Employment increased by 9,9% and even 999 persons over the age of 65 were employed. We welcome the fact that in so far as job creation projects are concerned, priority is being given to linking training to job creation, and that such projects are environmental conservation projects, as well as projects for the creation of infrastructure. That is CP policy. These projects are contributing to industrial peace and in the process strikes have also decreased. The downturn in the economy remains a cause for concern, however, although it has probably contributed to the decrease in the number of strikes.

When one looks at the total picture, the figure in regard to strikes as furnished by the hon the Acting Minister on 8 March is alarming. The total number of strikes between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 1988 was 2 966 and 1,120 million Blacks and 490 Whites were involved in them. The number of man-days lost was 8,044 million and the average length of each strike was 6,2 man-days. Under these circumstances we shall not allow ourselves to be convinced that the Wiehahn dispensation, which applies to a highly sophisticated unitary state, has met with success.

Owing to the measures pertaining to the personnel standstill, the creation of new posts has been slowed down and the personnel position of the department remains unsatisfactory. During 1988, 563 persons resigned from the service of the department. The CP shares the department’s concern at the loss of experienced officials, particularly in such important branches as occupational safety. Only 46,3% of the total number of accidents, namely 9 676, could be investigated in terms of section 17 of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act. This inevitably results in deregulation having to take place in the important sphere of occupational safety. I do not know whether it is a satisfactory state of affairs for it to be left to the employer to elect in which manner he wishes to comply with the minimum standards embodied in the legislation.

As a result of the large number of resignations and retirements from the service of the department, it may be profitable to look particularly at paragraph 5.279 on page 228 of the President’s Council’s report of the Committee for Economic Affairs, which relates to a strategy and action plan to improve productivity in the RSA. It deals with the six factors which are hampering the attainment of productivity in the public sector as well, namely, inter alia-.

1. 1) The rigidity of the posts structure, which does not allow the incumbent to extend beyond this position and which does not demand ambition but integrity.
2. 2) The uniformity of style.
3. 3) Limitation of decision-making abilities by the framework of regulations.
4. 4) Financial control by means of detailed instructions that do not make provision for spontaneous originality.

Hon members have had the benefit of studying this report—as well as the debate on it in the President’s Council. If ever a stronger indictment of the actions of the Government could be compiled or devised, I should like to see it.

Despite the doubts harboured by the committee, the report explains in accordance with the figures in table 2.3 in paragraph 2.77 that the GDP per capita in the industrialised nations is three to six times higher than that in South Africa. In the case of countries like Spain, Israel, Argentina and Greece the standard of living is approximately one and a half to two times as high as that in South Africa, and I quote:

How can one expect anything else if one reasons in terms of the concept of one South African nation in a unitary state, upon which the report is based? South Africa finds itself …

[Inaudible.]

It is very clear that that vociferous hon member has not yet even read that report. Has he read it? [Interjections.]

South Africa now finds itself in the company of countries like Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Columbia, the Philippines, Kenya, Malawi and Mexico.

At another place, in paragraph 4.16 on page 119 of the report, the committee comes to the conclusion that the productivity achievement of the South African economy is far below the expected level. I quote further:

In paragraph 4.18 on the same page reference is made to figure 4.6, which shows that labour productivity in the South African manufacturing sector increased at a slower rate than in any of the other countries, even though the level of productivity in South Africa is far lower than in those countries. The figures and statements in this portion of the report, in fact in the entire report, support the repeated arguments of the CP that the NP is leading the country to chaos in its stubborn commitment to a unitary state and an associated distribution of wealth which is undeniably leading to a steady decrease in our standard of living.

It is no wonder that the White worker feels threatened and that Mr Nick Cilliers had to utter the following cry of alarm at a meeting of the Iron and Steel and Allied Industries Union: “Never has a people been exposed to so many stumbling-blocks and been so abused as the Whites in the times in which we are living”. Just as in 1948 one can cry out: Quo vadis? Where to? Only the White worker’s faith in God can save him. These cries of alarm are being made by that leader, and that hon member laughs about it. He is laughing at the words of the leader of a White trade union in South Africa.

The White worker is concerned about the following matters:

1. a) The narrowing of the wage gap whilst the productivity of the workers of other population groups has not increased accordingly. Prof Horwood stated on one occasion that this fact was responsible for approximately 50% of the inflation factor.
2. b) The fact that the workers of other population groups in the White areas are being subsidised to a large extent. Their net remuneration packages are greater.
3. c) Owing to their smaller numbers, White trade unions which are still negotiating primarily on behalf of the White worker, have less muscle and influence.

This has just been proved by the hon member for Kuruman, who laughed at the statements of a leader of a White trade union.

1. d) The White worker, who is more disciplined, whose trade unions act responsibly and strictly within the bounds of the sophisticated Labour Relations Act, and who does not have any ulterior political motives, is not receiving a sufficiently sympathetic ear from the employer or employers’ organisations. Bear in mind that a man like Prof Wiehahn, the father of the new manpower dispensation, maintains that power sharing, successfully implemented in the trade unions, will lead to the successful implementation of power sharing in the government of the country.
2. e) Labour security, which is an important prerequisite to labour productivity, is receiving insufficient attention.

Therefore, the emphasis that is being placed on training by the public sector and the private sector and the millions of rand that are being spent on it within the guidelines of a unitary state, are resulting in the White worker living in fear of losing his identity and becoming swallowed up in the mass of workers. [Interjections.] If the hon member does not feel well, he may feel free to leave the room.

Cosatu and other Black workers’ organisations, who are concerned about the fact that the CP’s message is finding favour with the White worker, are also engaged at present in attempts to involve this worker in the struggle for so-called labour holism. In the interests of restoring healthy labour relations and increasing productivity in the RSA, a system of White preferential labour is inevitable. Just as a German or a Briton who receives vocational training in his country is naturally entitled to insist on employment in his own fatherland as a matter of first priority, so it must be for the White worker, both Afrikaans and English-speaking, in his own fatherland.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to welcome the Director-General, Adv Fourie. He proved himself last year when the labour legislation was introduced. I can assure him of our good co-operation. The hon member for Brakpan has just spoken about the White trade unions and the fear they have. That fear has served its purpose. Nowadays that fear cannot keep pace with the South African economy. It is because of that fear that we have landed in this mess at labour level.

I thank the hon the Acting Minister and his staff for the monthly bulletin of the registered unemployment statistics, which they send to us so regularly. This definitely keeps us apace of conditions in the labour sphere.

The South African labour and industrial world is facing very great challenges, which must be tackled with great perseverance. These challenges must be tackled with expertise. There is a great deficiency in our community with regard to technical education. In order to be more productive we will have to concentrate on technical education. This is also necessary to ensure that we do not miss out on having a share in the great challenge in the technical sphere owing to a lack of qualifications. I believe we must enter that sphere. There is also so much room to standardise less conspicuous components to a far greater extent.

South Africa is not a land of despair, but one of optimism and hope. We have an abundance of minerals, which must be processed and utilised. I therefore believe that one’s standard of living can only be improved if one has decent employment opportunities. The standard of living and employment opportunities must be directly linked to one another. Discriminatory factors in all spheres of employment and retirement must be removed from the labour sphere. It is one of the greatest evils in the labour world today that there is not equal and fair employment practices for employees. I am appealing to the hon the Acting Minister to look into this.

I should like to appeal to the Government to do everything in its power to create a sound economy and to make this a prerequisite for sound human relations. We are headed for a new political era and no just, responsible citizen of this country will allow himself to be trapped in the vicious circle of poverty. We can only face a brighter future if we involve the people in our national economy.

Blacks must tackle the challenges being made available today on the labour market with a vengeance. Equal and fair employment practices for all employees must be considered a priority. Recruitment, selection and placement must take place without discrimination against applicants or employees. Equal payment and benefits must be introduced for everyone doing comparable work. For that reason I wish the South Africa manpower management to introduce and maintain a system which will recognise equal rights and will guarantee equal opportunities and fair treatment, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Employers must show the social responsibility to contribute to the guarantee of freedom of movement, as well as accommodation of all their employees and their families. The tremendous strikes looming in the labour sphere cannot be prevented by legislation alone. Personnel management will have to make purposeful efforts to overcome this problem. It is now a foregone conclusion that the Black man holds the economy of this country in his hand.

The fact that the South African economy has failed to such a great extent to achieve its potential growth can definitely not be ascribed to a shortage in the supply of production factors. Last year’s stayaway campaigns by the workers’ unions, and those launched by Cosatu and so on, can to a certain extent be seen as part of the economic set-back. As a matter of fact I believe that South African businessmen cannot afford to come off second best in the struggle again. The stayaway campaigns dealt them a telling blow. This cannot be brushed aside with frivolous political gossip.

The businessmen of Boksburg and Carletonville are typical examples of this. We believe that our country has a bright future. We must not trample on it, but appreciate it and work on it. I also want to address the National Union of Mineworkers. They are the largest branch of Cosatu. I specifically want to touch on their congress discussions.

Cosatu believes in one industry, one union. However, I believe that the statements made at NUM’s congress are causing tension in Cosatu. I do not agree entirely with these statements, but I concede that a code of conduct must be implemented against violence. Because there are different ethnic groups working on the mines, mineworkers always run the risk of becoming involved in clashes and fights. Violence is something none of us can afford. Mine management will have to accede to certain requests when they are approached by NUM.

I believe the Chamber of Mines can accede to the request that the number of underground workers must be increased. We have had an interpellation dealing with this. Of course I realise that the mining industry is in an uncertain state with several gold-mines being operated at a loss. There are others which are only showing a small profit. Yesterday the hon member for Carletonville put an interpellation in the House of Assembly, but it must be rejected with the contempt it deserves. It is another political ploy the CP is going to use in the election. Nowadays the situation at the mines is being adapted to the present working conditions. The mines no longer belong to the Whites only. Whites and Blacks will have to be given the opportunity to process those minerals.

It would be taken very amiss of me if I did not also discuss legislation concerning labour relations which was agreed to by Parliament last year. I want to ask the hon the Minister and his department to think again and reconsider that piece of legislation.

It would seem as if this piece of legislation, which was supposed to keep most of the conflict between the different unions and employers in check, is running into difficulties. New trends are developing. Employers are now entering into agreements with trade unions in terms of which they are undertaking to circumvent provisions of the legislation on labour relations. It seems to me as if this phenomenon is coming increasingly to the fore in the labour sphere. Kelloggs and Pepsi are two enterprises which have entered into agreements in this connection with the Food and Allied Workers’ Union, Cosatu’s trade union in the beverages and foodstuffs industry. Trade unions intend to demand wage negotiations this year.

I want to devote the last part of my speech to the forestry industry. It is a crying shame that people still get their salaries every fifth week, whereas lorry drivers in that industry get their salaries on the 15th of every month. What is more these people are also experiencing problems when the breadwinners die. They also sometimes experience problems with the payment of their pension benefits when they retire.

An associated problem which is causing concern is housing. It has come to our attention that when the breadwinner dies in that industry, his surviving family must vacate the house within six months. I should like to know why the people cannot buy those houses. I am requesting the hon the Minister to come to the rescue of those people by having the matter investigated urgently and singling out and rectifying the problem.

Nowadays there are big problems in connection with unemployment certificates. The Department of Manpower or the Department of Health and Welfare must answer for that. Doctors are experiencing big problems with the payment of those accounts. I hope that this matter will be solved speedily.

I also hope that once we have buried all discriminatory factors in the labour sphere, employers will take a great deal of trouble in the groups to develop the criteria for productivity. I believe that if we come up with that system the problems in the labour field will be speedily eliminated, and everyone in the labour market will be happy workers.

Mr Chairman, to start with I want to congratulate Mr J D Fourie on his appointment as the Director-General of the Department of Manpower. Our paths have already crossed, and it was a pleasant meeting. We could talk openly and candidly to one another. We hope that he will hold this position for many years to come.

It is also proper for me to thank the department. I have worked very closely and pleasantly with every one of the officials. It was really an honour and a privilege to work with such a department. They know what they want to do and where they are going and it is really a particular privilege to be in that team.

I would be at fault if I neglected to thank all the members of the joint committee for what they have done during the past year.

†Each of these members contributed wisely and well to the deliberations in the joint committee. It is probably one of the few committees where eventually, after consultation and agreement, we passed through the committee each and every piece of legislation that came across our tables.

*Discussions were sometimes heated and lengthy but eventually reason prevailed, and I praise the joint committee for that. We worked together well and we did not have many problems.

I should now like to come back to the hon member for Brakpan. Today he started off by talking about the annual report. By the way, I also think it is an excellent report. One always has to wait a while for the good things in life, and that is why we had to wait a day or two longer for this annual report.

The hon member for Brakpan was the first member to start levelling criticism left, right and centre. I expect other hon members are probably going to do so too. They have criticised Wiehahn en what he advocated. The hon member also referred to the White worker, and quickly added to this that in Great Britain a Briton has the first right. Now I want to ask him: What happens when that Briton is Black? Does the White Briton have more advantages and privileges than the Black Briton?

Are you going to give him franchise? [Interjections.]

I have already given him franchise. The White Briton has just as many privileges as the Black Briton. In my country the Black man has franchise just like the White man. [Interjections.] It is not a unitary state like Britain, but the fact remains that the member of that state has the same rights, whether he is White or Black.

I shall go further. What did I hear about the CP’s policy today? What did the CP tell this committee today in respect of what they foresee in the field of manpower in the future? They are criticising, but they are not making a constructive suggestion at all. Today the hon member did not say anything about the CP’s policy. I knew this was going to happen, because he cannot say anything about it; he knows how ridiculous their policy is.

Let us analyse for a moment today what we have already heard about the CP’s labour policy. Let us see what they stand for. I can only refer to the irresponsible remarks by the hon member for Carletonville, the hon member for Brakpan and other hon members. Let us see what they said.

The first statement they made, and they did it so beautifully, was to say that the CP would protect the interests of the White worker. This is the cry, and it has been said again here. The first question I must ask is: What must they protect the White worker against? The second question is: What must they protect the White worker with?

Judging by what they have said, two matters are at issue. The reply to the question what the White worker must be protected against is: Against the Black peril. Surely that is what it is all about. The Whites must be protected against the Black peril which is going to take over the positions of the Whites. The reply to the question as to what he must be protected with, is clear: It is legislation. If the CP were to introduce legislation to protect the White worker, it would only mean one thing: They would have to go back to old, outdated laws, namely the legislation in connection with job reservation.

If they bring back that legislation, what will they do with people of colour who have already been trained, are working, and are doing good work into the bargain? Is the CP going to untrain them? Is the CP going to take their training away from them? Is the CP going to dismiss them from the jobs they are doing? That is the question. Or is the CP going to be so indiscreet as to allow the Blacks to weld in secret, as long as they do it behind screens where the Whites cannot see them? Is the CP going to allow that again? Is the CP going to introduce such ridiculous things if they get the opportunity to come into power?

Is the CP perhaps going to allow the Blacks to practise their professions in the Black towns? Is the CP, like the hon member for Carletonville, going to tell the Black people that they must go and practise their professions in the Black towns, in the same way that he is telling them they must go and spend their money in the Black towns by purchasing from Black shopkeepers? The CP’s cry for the protection of the White worker cannot mean anything but a return to job reservation.

It is also important to state that their cry is giving Whites a false sense of security. The CP is telling the White worker that his skin will assure him of his work. The CP is telling him that no matter how badly he works, his white skin will assure him of a job if he votes for the CP. The hon members of the CP know that they cannot do that.

They know that the cry that the White worker has been sold out is false and crude. They know that! These hon members shout that regularly, but they know as well as I do the answer lies in what the Government has said: The worker’s performance and his capacity for work must be decisive, not the colour of his skin. Or do the hon members of the CP really think that our White workers are so bad? With that cry that they will protect the White worker, they are creating false hope among their people. They are creating the illusion that the less wealthy White worker will always be better off than any Black worker. They are creating the illusion that under a CP government the White worker must and will always have more than the Blacks. Those hon members must tell us today how they are going to manage, if they are the government, always to give the Whites more than the Blacks.

They are creating the illusion that a CP government will give the White worker everything. The White worker will then live a good life and have a lot of money without having to do anything in return. Hon members must just listen how Whites have been poisoned by their propaganda. In a recent report on the bread price the following was said:

Those hon members are causing the Whites to say that even if they do not have work or anything else, they must at least have something which is better than “some houses in Soweto”! It therefore does not matter whether or not one works for something. The CP says that if a person is White, he will have these things and they will be better than the Black man’s or what some Blacks in Soweto have, even if that Black man is a businessman, a doctor or whatever.

That is not all. I am continuing to quote:

I do not know these people. I am merely quoting from the report—

I have sympathy and empathy with these people if they are battling, but hon members must listen to the following:

Then follows the pathetic statement—

The CP is creating false hope among the Whites and they are going to pay the price for that.

Where does that report come from?

Die Transvaler, Monday … [Interjections.] That hon member says I must wait for Stilfontein. I hear the story is going the rounds in Parliament that the hon member for Carletonville wants to stand in Stilfontein in the election. [Interjections.] He must come. He is very welcome. [Interjections.] I shall proceed. [Interjections.]

Order!

These people are telling the Whites that the Government owes them everything and that the Whites must always be better off than Blacks. They say the Whites must vote for them and then the CP will see to this. The time has come for the CP to tell the people precisely what they mean by their cry that they are going to protect the Whites.

The absurdities do not end there. The hon member for Lichtenburg and the former hon member Mr Jan Hoon—who is no longer with us, but who is now a member of the President’s Council—held a CP meeting a year or two ago in Klerksdorp and announced loudly there that the CP wanted to ensure that the Black workers would commute from the homelands and Black areas to their places of work in White South Africa. To a fanfare of trumpets they spoke about bullet trains that would transport Black workers. All this to protect the White man in White South Africa.

They said the Blacks would have to commute every day. Let us analyse this absurdity. Let us first take the two towns of Orkney and Stilfontein. How many trains would the CP need to transport 100 000 Black labourers to the mines every morning? What about the buses to get them from the stations to the mine shafts? Or are they going to get every train to travel right up to every shaft? At what time of night would they have to leave home if they have to start working at four o’clock in the morning?

What about the train from Malawi?

At what time of night would they get back home if they worked until 17h00? What about milk delivery boys and domestic servants? Where must they commute? Another important question is: What about farm workers? What are they going to do about them? How is the farmer going to get his farm workers to his farm on a bullet train by four o’clock in the morning?

The billion dollar question is the following: Where are they going to get the money from for such absurdities? Are they going to use “White money” to do this? Or are they perhaps going to tax the Black workers more than the Whites because they are actually doing them a favour in that they are going to be able to spend one and a half or two hours per night with their families? Who do they think they are bluffing?

While we are talking about bluffing, the CP is again spreading the rumour that Whites pay more tax than Blacks on the same salary. Please tell these people that there is only one tax scale and that those amounts which are erroneously deducted by employers are rectified at the end of the tax year. They must not go around with the two tax returns, as they are already doing and say: There is the proof; look there, the White pays this and the Black pays that. They know that is not true.

They are politically bankrupt.

They know that they are simply trying to bluff people.

In contrast to this and many other absurdities of the CP we have the other parties in this House. You will note, Mr Chairman, I said “the other parties in this House”.

Your allies.

Allies, yes, because in this House they are the equal of any other party or MP. [Interjections.] All those parties, like the NP, are striving for a fair labour set-up for all peoples and groups. They are striving for a labour policy and a manpower policy in which everyone will be treated as equals and where the colour of a man’s skin will not be the yardstick for promotion, salary and benefits, but where training, qualifications and productivity will be the yardstick for reward.

If we go forward to meet the future with those principles, all will go well with us in the labour sphere. However, if we go forward to meet the future with the CP’s principles of bullet trains and outdated job reservation and so on, this country of ours will end up in chaos.

I very much wanted to touch on a matter, but I am not going to have the time to do so, because I wanted to talk about these absurdities of the CP first. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Acting Minister of Manpower, and also place on record our thanks to the former Director-General of Manpower, Dr Van Der Merwe. I should also like to welcome the new Director-General, Advocate Fourie.

I have previously spoken on the question of job opportunities for people of colour, but it is abundantly clear that some major companies are still practising discrimination as far as job opportunities are concerned. As a matter of fact, many people of colour have given faithful service to their employers, but what they get in return is absolutely nothing. A number of South African companies are replacing their top non-White staff with former Rhodesians. I find this practice disgusting. Foreign Whites are brought into this country who know nothing as far as the job is concerned. In fact, they are taught by the people of colour. Six months later, the very person who taught the foreign White, is replaced immediately. I find this, too, disgusting. Many South African companies make the cosmetic claim that they are equal-opportunity employers, but still practise discrimination.

To lower the shortage of skilled manpower in South Africa, we require that our people be given the opportunity to progress in the field in which they are trained. Men and women who possess very high qualifications are not considered for promotion because of their colour.

There is a shortage of middle management staff and managers in many fields. These posts can be filled by Blacks, Indians and Coloureds if they are given the opportunity. When companies do promote people of colour to the posts of managers and middle managers, they deprive them of the perks which go with the job because of their colour.

Firstly, when a White manager is employed in a company he is given benefits such as a pension, medical aid, a housing subsidy and a motor car. However, when a non-White is given the same job, he receives a pension and medical aid, but no housing subsidy and no motor car allowance. I want to know why people of colour are denied a housing subsidy. Companies claim that they do not practise discrimination, yet it is done in some other form.

I must compliment the hon the Minister and his department on their efforts in improving the labour market, and the fine work carried out by the Natal Training Centre and Bifsa. Bifsa and the Natal Training Centre must be complimented for their efforts and for the pride they take in training the unemployed.

The economic downswing in the past years has affected the employment position. Calling for sanctions and boycotts is not going to solve the country’s problems. Boycotts and sanctions have seriously affected the poorer communities in South Africa. One must realise that without a job one cannot buy food and one cannot pay one’s rent. So what does one do?

Crime is on the increase due to unemployment, and therefore I want to appeal to those who are calling for sanctions and boycotts to reconsider their decision because it is hurting the very people they wish to help.

The Wiehahn Commission’s report and the Riekert Commission’s report led to the gradual introduction of a new labour dispensation from 1979. All restrictions on Black trade unions were lifted and they were admitted to the formal system of industrial relations. By admitting Black trade unions to the system, other trade unions have admitted Blacks and other race groups, which is a step in the right direction towards eliminating industrial discrimination.

Mr Chairman, allow me to delve into something of vital importance concerning our economy. I would first of all like to reiterate what the hon member for Camperdown said in an agricultural debate a couple of years ago. He said that agriculture is the base of the social pyramid. Emanating from this wise saying I want to ask the hon the Minister to be cautious in considering trade unionism for agricultural workers.

If trade unionism is introduced willy-nilly, several struggling small farmers will be put out of business and this will result in the loss of thousands of jobs of unskilled labourers. Coupled with that will be a shortage of a variety of foodstuffs, particularly things such as vegetables, eggs and poultry.

Many of these small farmers conduct farming operations on a restricted scale which nevertheless provides employment for many people. I know that in Natal a market gardener operating on a 15 ha plot employs 12 to 15 labourers. Because of the size of the land he cannot afford a mechanical operation. He therefore relies on manual labour. I hasten to add, however, that there are types of large industries and industrialised farming such as forestry, large-scale poultry farming, ranching and so on which should be considered for some form of unionism.

Turning to the question of education, where do we start? There is a need for us and for the Government to articulate a policy which will develop the skills of the country. We need a short-term objective and a long-term goal. We need to revise the educational system. What is the future of a student who comes out of school with 12 years of education under the present curriculum? Does he proceed to the university, technikon or training school, or into the labour market with no skill at all? We must develop a programme that can channel the future skill in such a way that they can best serve us in the future.

We have a First and a Third World component. We have recognised the existence of the Third World sector, namely the informal sector. On the other hand, we are entering a life of technology with the emphasis on electronics. How do we apply remedial measures to overcome the historical deficiency and social neglect?

How do we prepare for the future age of technology? We have a massive problem facing our society with respect to manpower needs. Any programme requires careful planning and finance at a time when our finances are in a critical condition. We are facing the most serious problem which has major financial implications, but money invested in manpower is a wise investment for the future. We cannot overcome the historical backlog to our satisfaction, but a start has to be made. The time for this has arrived. Let us invest in our future.

Mr Chairman, the DP would like to associate itself with the words of welcome and congratulations to the new Director-General, Mr Joel Fourie. Those of us who have worked on the standing committee know of his competence as an individual and know him as someone who has very solid negotiating powers and who is held in high esteem by both employer organisations and unions. The fact that he receives regular invitations to attend and speak at their functions serves as proof of that. We wish him well and we also wish his department well for the next year.

If one were to look at the activities of the department for the last year, no alarming features stand out which one would immediately recognise. By and large, as far as labour relations are concerned, the year 1988 was a stable year. I wish to refer to four trends worth mentioning that one can perhaps identify over the period of 1988.

The first is the fact that there was a dramatic decline in industrial action during 1988. That is due, to a large extent, to the fact that both in employer organisations, that is management, and within the unions there has been a growing sophistication as far as industrial relations, negotiation and making use of the procedures are concerned. There has been a significant and tremendous advance in this area since the late seventies and early eighties. That is, I believe, the main contributing factor towards the dramatic decline in industrial actions over the last year.

A second trend would be the high rate of wage increases over the last year compared to previous years. Wages increased at a rate higher than the rate of inflation during 1988—a welcome trend, even though to a large extent the base for that was probably laid during 1987, which was a year full of turmoil for industrial relations.

A third trend would be a clear indication that the dispute-settling procedures provided for by the Labour Relations Act are being used at an ever-increasing rate. This is also a welcome development.

A fourth trend that one needs to take note of is the fact that powerful labour federations—I am referring to Cosatu and Nactu—seem to be moving closer together and are showing a greater willingness to co-operate with each other. This is certainly something, if it develops, that will have an impact in the labour arena. It will be something of which employers, unions and everyone involved will have to take note.

Where does the Department of Manpower fit in? During a debate on a Vote like this, one is supposed to bring the department and its Minister to account, ask questions and see whether there is sufficient reason to support and vote for the budget for which the department is asking. I would like to refer to a few matters.

Firstly, on a lighter note: If one looks at the report, it seems as though the Department of Manpower is now being driven by womanpower, because 46,16% of the posts are filled by women and only 42,3% are filled by men. This is a trend which not even the Department of Manpower could prevent from happening.

Women are starting to play a more and more potent and influential role in public service, unions and commerce and industry. That is welcome.

One aspect that did affect the department directly during 1988 was the promulgation of the Labour Relations Amendment Act on 1 September 1988. That amending Act has only been operational for a few months, but it is already clear that some of the amendments which were introduced are starting to produce repercussions and I would ask the hon the Acting Minister to look at the following sections which are causing problems, even after a few months of being in operation.

The first section I would like to refer to is section 7(11)(a) of the Act. That section now makes it possible for the industrial court to grant urgent interim interdicts until an order is made in terms of section 43(4). Previously that section was worded differently and in essence it provided that the industrial court could act in the same way as a court of law would have acted in granting urgent interim orders, and a court of law can only do that if there was an unlawful action which needed to be anticipated and where damage had to be stopped. As the wording stands now, unlawful action is not necessary. Both from unions and from employer organisations there have been complaints that section 17(11)(a) is making matters very difficult and prejudices the organisations in pursuing their objectives through the normal procedures of the Labour Relations Act.

It has been explained by personnel of the industrial court that when they decide on whether or not to grant an urgent interim interdict, they look at all the circumstances including the question of fairness and the question of whether the applicant would suffer prejudice if the interdict was not granted. It is not necessary for the applicant to show that the action of the other side is unlawful. The result of that is that interdicts can now be obtained and thereby action by either the union as far as strikes are concerned, or by employers as far as lock-outs are concerned, can be blocked or at least extended for up to three months. That section needs to be looked into. I ask him to consider amending it in order to return to the previous position where unlawfulness was necessary.

A second section of the Act which is already causing tension is section 79. That is the section which enables, for example, a company to sue an official of a trade union for damages if as a result of an illegal strike damages were suffered. The section passes the onus on to the trade union official or representative in that he must now prove that he was not responsible and did not have anything to do with it. Already I understand actions have been instituted, although some of them were withdrawn and to my knowledge no court proceedings are pending at the moment.

The threat of an action for damages, and therefore of a trade union being declared bankrupt, is causing tensions and will have the predictable result that if there is a strike, which could be illegal, trade unions will distance themselves from the strike. They will not be seen near the factory floor in case they could be implicated and held responsible. These sentiments were expressed during the debate on the Bill. There are more and more indications that those suggestions were correct and once again I ask the department to look into section 79 and to scrap that provision which entitles action for damages to be instituted.

It is going to bedevil labour relations. It is going to encourage unions and employers to bypass the provisions of the Labour Relations Act in order to enter into so-called second-generation agreements. They will bypass provisions relating to timetables and others which relate to section 79. That is being encouraged by the inclusion of the new section 79.

The third aspect relating to the Bill that I want to refer to is the growing number of agreements between unions and employers who bypass the Labour Relations Act. As I have said, these are the so-called second-generation agreements. Unless sections like section 17(11), section 79 and others are looked at critically, there will be a growing number of such second-generation agreements. This will not necessarily be beneficial to labour relations. In effect, two systems will start growing up. On the one hand there will be the formal procedure as defined by the Act, and on the other there will be a growing number of agreements which will deliberately bypass the Act and which therefore, in a way, delegitimise the provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

I also would like to refer to the Industrial Court. Last year the Industrial Court received 3 838 cases, compared to 3 533 in 1987. Even though a number of additional ad hoc members were appointed to assist in dealing with the backlog, it was still not possible to appoint enough permanent staff to cope with the workload. The Industrial Court plays a crucial role, and all the fine procedures that are provided for by the Act will not serve any purpose if the backlog at the Industrial Court increases, as is the case at the moment.

At the end of 1988 there were 1 314 cases that had not been finalised. In the previous year this figure was only 776. What is the department going to do about this backlog? What is it going to do to attract more competent and permanent officials to the Industrial Court, because that is a matter of priority. Has something been done to get rid of the backlog?

I also want to refer to something which is not directly the responsibility of the department, but which touches on its activity. We know that Cosatu was served with restrictions under the emergency regulations which prevents it from making certain statements or performing certain acts as contained in the regulations. These regulations and restrictions concern matters which are not usually trade union matters. They are not allowed to pronounce upon or to get involved in activities which are not strictly trade union matters, as defined in terms of the emergency regulations.

We are creating an artificial situation if we believe that a trade union can be confined to what is called “strictly trade union activities”. These include shop floor matters, safety measures, wages and conditions of work. Employer organisations are openly saying that they are not going to concern themselves only with industrial relations. They are actively going to move into, and pronounce upon the area of socio-political activities.

Look at Seifsa, for example. This is a powerful employer organisation. If one looks at the Financial Mail of 14 October 1988, one will find that a report in this magazine indicates that at an annual general meeting of Seifsa the retiring president, Mr Richard Savage, said that the federation was preparing to shed its emphasis on industrial relations and to join other employer bodies pressing for economic and socio-political change. He said that the federation was no longer sure it could afford industrial relations, particularly wage negotiations, to dominate its affairs and was reviewing its role. It is not only Seifsa that is thinking along these lines.

Virtually every major employer organisation is embarking into this area. Why should unions then be prohibited from doing so? I ask the department to play its role in allowing Cosatu to return to normality as far as its activities are concerned and to lift the restrictions that have been placed on Cosatu. The Government must lift the restrictions so that it can also involve itself in the necessary area of socio-political endeavours as it is entitled to do.

Finally, I want to touch on the question of Workers’ Day. Why can the department not declare 1 May a public holiday instead of doing an egg-dance around the issue by making the first Monday in May Workers’ Day? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, South Africa is today, more than at any other time in its past, politically, economically and culturally isolated from overseas countries. Notwithstanding our long-standing ties of friendship, and numerous historical and cultural bonds with the West, it is precisely there that the international campaign to isolate us has its roots.

Part of our problem is that arguments against sanctions are generally presented in a negative light. Sanctions detrimentally affect our people, and that is why there are so many unemployed in South Africa. On the other hand it is also striking that a great deal of the international criticism against South Africa is self-serving, ill-informed and simplistic. Organisations such as the South Africa Foundation, financed by private individuals and corporations, do everything in their power, and within the limits of their budgets, to promote informed policies towards South Africa abroad.

When all is said and done the real solution to South Africa’s present crisis rests with its people and its Government. Little can be achieved by comparing our situation with that of the rest of Africa, with its military dictators and one-party states. The reality of our situation is that we are being judged by Western standards. This is very unfair, because we have to keep pace with the complexities of an African community. We must also realise that in the far-distant future our efforts are going to be brushed off as being too little, too late.

Order! The hon member should really move a bit closer to the Vote under discussion.

Despite the fact that many of the reforms that have taken place over the past 10 years cannot be regarded as irrelevant, we are not commended for our efforts to initiate reform on the strength of our convictions. We can move, with determination and with increasing self-confidence, towards a South Africa in which racial discrimination will be eliminated.

If we have the political will to pursue this goal purposefully, the international community will welcome us with open arms, sanctions will be a thing of the past and it will be possible to create more job opportunities for our less privileged citizens. We will only achieve international credibility if we show the world, in no uncertain terms, that we are firmly on the road towards creating social and political order without discrimination.

I am of the opinion that as a result of the imposition of sanctions and disinvestment, which causes unemployment, there is a deep concern amongst many of our Coloured and Black people, because we are the ones who are suffering as a result of, and are plagued by, unemployment and poverty.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister for the job-creation and training centres which have been a great help to our unemployed. I am convinced that many of South Africa’s friends in the West realise that the policy of implementing penal measures to bring about change in South Africa was a great mistake.

We have too little positive evidence of Black and Coloured participation in the competitive market system to convince our critics that it is through this process that Coloured and Black people can take their rightful place in our society. How many potential success stories go untold among the 25 million Black South Africans who are not always regarded, by themselves and by the rest of us, as a labour force and as full-fledged participants in the economy of this country? It is in the interests of all of us that these talents and this energy and creative force be released.

The life-blood of entrepreneurship is incentive. The significant participation of Coloured and Black people in economic life as owners, entrepreneurs, managers and shareholders will be the key element in the future economic and social development of this country. This will also mean that more job opportunities can be created. The extent to which the Black and Coloured business sector can flourish without any assistance at present is limited, particularly in the field of access to skills, training and in particular, resources such as risk capital.

The creation of the proper conditions, namely deregulation and the removal of restrictive and usually racially discriminatory factors, is the process which has apparently been the most effective in breaking down artificial racial separation which we created to separate ourselves from our fellow South Africans.

Our objective must always be the creation of actual political and social structures acceptable to all. Wide-ranging discussions with the lawful representatives of our various communities are essential. Of course it is not the job of overseas countries to prescribe to us what form the new structure should take. It is for us to reach across the vast chasm of suspicion, which is our legacy in order to make those negotiations possible. The solution is not to be found in America or the United Nations; it is only to be found in South Africa.

It is a devastating attack on the consciences of privileged South Africans who refuse to lower their own quality of life even slightly so that others can have a more dignified existence, not to mention those manipulators who are without any conscience at all and who abuse their positions to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Farmers are flattened by debt as a result of increasing inflation, higher production costs and devastating droughts. In such cases they should rather let their farm workers go.

However, what cannot be argued away is that questions such as the population growth rate, higher productivity and the better preservation of land will have to be seriously addressed. It is also necessary to create a political climate which would induce critical overseas countries to move away from crippling sanctions and to reinvest in South Africa. This is why obscurantism cannot be allowed to impede the Government’s reform initiative. Those who want to cling to what they have at any price will eventually cause everyone to lose everything.

I want to refer to a report in Die Burger of 21 April 1987 in which it is stated: “VSA-bank verwerp Tutu en Jackson se sanksiedrywers vir die groot afjak.” I am a member of the NG Church of South Africa, and Dr Alan Boesak is my moderator. I want to say here today, however, that I have no respect for him. [Interjections.] There are fellow South Africans who condone sanctions and forget about our poor brothers and sisters who sit hungry at the roadside begging for food or money from every passing car because they are unemployed and starving.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to tell the hon member for Stilfontein that he must not pay any attention to the gossip-mongering tales of the NP. I do not fight against a lightweight. I want a heavyweight to fight against.

Where are you going to stand?

In Carletonville. [Interjections.] He also asked against whom the White worker had to be protected. The White worker must be protected against the NP! [Interjections.] I want to make it clear that the White worker in South Africa trusts the CP and that is why he votes for the CP.

The hon member also asked how we were going to protect the Whites. I merely want to tell him that he is talking as if CP policy is also going to be a “new South Africa” or a unitary state. We are going to protect the White worker in White South Africa and that hon member is going to experience that. Maybe he will not experience it; he will suffer a heart attack in September when Groenewald has settled his hash for him. [Interjections.]

In 1987 the hon the State President announced in Boksburg that he was going to introduce a workers’ day to express appreciation to the workers of South Africa. He said he would make it the first Friday in May. What was striking however was that 1 May was the first Friday in May. The people of colour in South Africa indicated very clearly in 1987 that if the Government did not make 1 May a public holiday, they would not go to work. This was just before the election and the hon the State President had no option but to declare the first Friday in May, which just happen to be 1 May, Workers’ Day.

It is 1 May again this year.

If we look at Hansard (House of Assembly) 7 August 1987, cols 3318 and 3319 and see what prospects the CP holds out, hon members will agree with me that the NP cannot govern this country any longer. I want to quote what I said as follows:

It is a communist day. We all know it was introduced by the communists. [Interjections.] Then the hon Minister who has now run away said:

The hon member for Sasolburg, who knows nothing about labour, then started speaking and said:

What happened last year? At the end of last year the then Minister of Manpower announced that the Government had decided to shift Workers’ Day to the first Monday. What is the date of the first Monday? It is yet again 1 May! Is it a coincidence, or what is going on?

Let us see what The Citizen of 28 September 1988 said under the headline:

What do we find now? The Government’s slip is showing so much that it is actually ridiculous. They are hiding behind words. This Government is afraid of the people of colour in South Africa; that is why they are kowtowing to them and acceding to their demands. [Interjections.]

What is going to happen next year on 1 May? I want to predict right now, and I am a soothsayer, that next year 1 May is going to be Labour Day, because that is what the people of colour in South Africa want. They do not want another day. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not care how many soothsayers there are in this Committee; they cannot all make predictions simultaneously. The hon member for Carletonville may proceed.

If we examine the Public Holidays Act, we see that it is very clearly stated that only when New Year falls on a Sunday, the Monday will be a public holiday. In the case of all other public holidays which fall on a Sunday, the Monday will not be a public holiday.

What happened last year, however? Last year it was assumed that because 1 May fell on a Sunday, the first Friday would be Labour Day. However, Labour Day was on 6 May, and what happened? In Die Burger of 7 May 1988 it was reported:

This refers to Monday 2 May—

The report goes on:

… to work on that day. [Interjections.] This again proves that the minority, the Whites, must give in and must go to work when the people of colour in South Africa say: “We are not interested in a public holiday introduced by the Government; we want our own public holiday.” This is still happening all the time.

Now we come to this year. [Interjections.] I should like to hear from the hon the Minister what his standpoint in this connection is. I am quoting from a letter with the following letterhead:

A certain Mr Boyd wrote this letter. It reads as follows:

He says here: “with the unions”. Today I want to state categorically that the Whites in the building industry were not consulted. They say they are going to work on the following days:

This is a public holiday introduced for the Whites to celebrate this country’s becoming a Republic and now they are being forced to work. On 10 October—Kruger Day—they are being forced to work because they are in the minority. The building industry is now going to close down from 1 May to 5 May, but the Whites do not want that. They have no option but to accept it.

Why does he not tell us more about the mines!

Let us see what Assocom says. After all, Assocom prescribes to the Government what it should do. In their third quarterly report of 1988 we read the following:

I have already asked what is going to happen in 1990. In 1990 we are going to have Labour Day on 1 May. Now I want to know from the Nationalists—they talk about the minority because they are afraid to talk about the Whites— what they are going to do? They say they are prepared to protect the minority in South Africa. Up to now they have refused to tell us how they are going to protect the minority in South Africa, because they do not know how. They are running away from this and are looking for excuses. [Interjections.]

Here is proof that the minority cannot be protected; that the minority must yield to the majority. This is even going to happen at the political level. For that reason the hon the Minister must please tell me how the minority of White workers in the labour field are going to be protected so that they can retain their traditional public holidays. [Interjections.] All the Nationalists can do is laugh. I know that when one talks about the White worker, the Nationalists laugh.

I am laughing at you!

When I look at that hon member’s face, I want to burst out laughing.

Order! No, the hon member may not refer to the physical appearance of another hon member. The hon member may proceed.

One would really say that they were not elected by the Whites in South Africa to state the standpoint of their voters here or that they have not come here to look after the interests of their voters. They sit here laughing, but the day there is an election, they run to their voters. They tell them how well the NP is going to protect them, and what is going to be done to protect them.

I want to touch on trade unions for a moment. I have said this before, and I want to say it again today: What I have forgotten about trade unions all the Nationalists sitting here still have to learn—including that big United Party supporter, the hon member for Kuruman.

Recently we have found that the statements made by Black trade unions have been politically inspired. It is they who are telling the Government: “Look, we have come this far. We are not going to listen to you any longer. We are now going full out to get political rights for our members.” The NP is singing the same tune too. It has already been pointed out that agreements are being entered into in connection with the industrial legislation. The other day we saw BMW enter into an agreement with the trade unions in terms of which certain of the demands of the trade unions are going to be met. A person being detained in terms of the emergency regulations is even going to receive full pay. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the very outset, allow me to associate myself with the sentiments expressed with regard to the previous Director-General, Dr van der Merwe, who has been promoted to chairman of the Commission for Administration. We congratulate him and we wish him well in his new position. Our congratulations also go to Adv Fourie in his new position as Director-General of the Department of Manpower.

The Labour Party of South Africa has committed itself to promoting the political, social and economic emancipation of South Africa’s people, and more particularly those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or brain for their livelihood. We are also committed to opposing forced labour and particularly the exploitation of cheap labour. We believe that South Africa’s farm workers and domestic servants represent an example of the exploitation of cheap labour.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes the word “serf’ as follows, and I quote:

Hence, according to the Oxford Dictionary the word “serfdom” is derived from the Latin word “servus” which means slave.

In Bosman, Van der Merwe and Hiemstra’s Tweetalige Woordeboek the English word “serfdom” is described as follows, and I quote:

South Africa’s farm workers, in particular, as well as its domestic servants find themselves in a state of serfdom. They do not have access to industrial courts and thus have no means of seeking redress for unfair labour practice, because in South Africa the industrial courts are seen as the dispute-settling machinery of the workplace.

South Africa’s farm workers are also excluded from the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Wage Act and the Labour Relations Act. The exclusion of farm workers from the basic conditions of the Labour Relations Act means that no minimum conditions of employment need to be laid down for farm workers, except via the charity and benevolence of the farmer. It also means that the farm worker, in terms of law, is not entitled to annual leave or to sick leave, nor is he entitled to the normal benefits in terms of working hours and overtime and the usual holidays enjoyed by other workers.

In essence therefore the exclusion of farm workers from the ambit of South Africa’s labour laws provides the farmer as the employer with an unfair advantage and unfair protection It needs to be said that the farm worker in South Africa finds himself in the position of a serf, at the mercy of the hon the Acting Minister of Manpower and South Africa’s White farmers.

South Africa is currently struggling with the concept of reform. The NP believes that the process of reform must guarantee the protection of minority groups and the protection of cultures and traditions. Yet we find that this tradition has manifested itself in the sort of incidents we read about in our newspapers. An example of this can be found in the New Nation of 13 February 1986.

The heading reads: “Times are hard down on the farm.” The article says:

The article goes on to say:

In one case in Natal a farmer was found guilty of flogging a Black woman worker and fined R50. During the course of the trial the farmer justified his action on the basis of, and I quote:

This is the tradition that I referred to earlier. This begs the question: Is this one of those traditions that the NP wants to protect? Is the holding down of South Africa’s farm workers in a state of serfdom part of the NP’s protection of the rights of the White minority? It needs to be said that White Afrikanerdom can and does pride itself on having a missionary role in Africa. It prides itself, and quite rightly so, on having developed economically and politically to the extent that they head and control some of the country’s largest corporations and they are currently in control of the country’s Government. White Afrikanerdom is therefore strong. They are strong as a group. They are strong in their faith. Despite this obvious strength they still feel the need for protection of this nature. In the process they prevent the poor farm workers from enjoying those basic rights enjoyed by other occupation groups.

In 1981 a White Paper on the report of the Commission of Enquiry into Labour Legislation was tabled by the Government. That same commission of enquiry had recommended that farm workers be included in the ambit of certain labour legislation. In March 1982 the National Manpower Commission was asked to investigate the situation of farm workers. After a penetrating and lengthy investigation the Manpower Commission submitted a preliminary draft report in Afrikaans at the end of 1984. In May 1985 a translated report was presented to the Government.

In February 1986 a private member’s motion was debated in the House of Representatives, which called upon the then Minister of Manpower to include farm workers within the ambit of labour legislation. In his reply the then Minister stated amongst other things that there were matters that needed further investigation. We have gone beyond February 1989 and it is inconceivable that an issue as important as this, one that affects the everyday lives of people—I stress people— can take so much time to be resolved. In the meantime farm workers are discriminated against with the tacit approval of the Government.

An example of this is their exclusion from the social security enjoyed by other occupation groups in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. A further example is their exclusion from the Wage Act, which makes provision for inspectors of the Department of Manpower to visit workers in their workplace and to act as agents or arbiters of the department.

Cases of farm workers being exploited and assaulted fill our newspapers and our law reports. Their exclusion from the ambit of South Africa’s labour legislation means that they are subjected to forces beyond their control. This exploitation was referred to in that debate of February 1986 in the House of Representatives as extortion. The exploitation suffered by the farm worker has also been referred to as economic slavery. These are all strong terms, but I do not believe that they have been used lightly. This, I believe, is a serious matter and one that has been held in abeyance for far too long. I therefore call upon the hon the Acting Minister of Manpower to do that which is good and proper.

Let us help release the farm worker from his chains of bondage, amend the Labour Relations Act, amend the Wage Act, amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and amend the Basic Conditions of Employment Act so that the farm workers can also strive for a place in the sun and enjoy no more than the same benefits enjoyed by almost all other workers in the RSA.

An hon member, by way of an interjection, said that we should look at the other side of the coin. I concede that much has been done for farm workers in South Africa, but I am dealing with legislation that pertains to this particular department. Let me hasten to add that I give credit to the hon the Minister of National Health, who happens to be my Minister. My apologies and respects to the hon the Acting Minister of Manpower, for standing here and giving credit to him, but unfortunately I have been forced to do so. I thank him for the plans pertaining to farm workers which he made public a short while ago in the House of Representatives. We give credit to him for all that has been done, but it still does not detract from the position that the farm worker finds himself in.

In the time that I still have at my disposal, I would like to deal with the question of trade training centres. [Interjections.] I will leave the hon member for Carletonville to that hon member. Provision is made for the training of trainees in terms of section 30 of the Manpower Training Act of 1981. An information brochure issued by the Department of Manpower states, inter alia, and I quote:

It continues, and I quote:

Therein, Sir, lies the sting. Coloured trainees, regardless of where they live or regardless of whether a trade training centre exists in the province or region where they reside, are expected to attend the trade training centre in Bellville, simply because that centre caters for Coloureds. In my opinion this is unacceptable. I think the hon the Acting Minister will agree that it is also impractical.

I have written to the hon the Acting Minister and asked him for a reply in this respect, because I am informed that a similar trade training centre exists at Sastri College in Durban. Are we then to assume that Coloureds who live in Durban or elsewhere in Natal must travel all the way to Bellville because the hon the Acting Minister or his department is exercising a colour policy in this regard? I do not believe that.

The hon the Acting Minister will agree with me that for practical and logistical reasons, trade trainees in Natal should be referred to the Sastri College, regardless of race or colour. It is both effective and efficient. It will also do away with needless racism.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister dealt mainly with the legislation in connection with farm workers. He is right. Investigations are being instituted now that the Wiehahn report has appeared. This report is with the Government. The investigation into and the negotiations on this will mainly take place with the agricultural unions because this falls in their sphere.

The Government’s policy that available manpower must be utilised to the optimum, implies that every person who wants to and can work must be offered work and that every worker’s potential must be fully developed. It is therefore the policy of the Department of Manpower to ensure that employment opportunities are created to combat unemployment, and that people are employed in such a way that they are utilised to the optimum. The more unemployment there is in a country, the more serious the negative social consequences are and the greater the danger is of social and political unrest. The department is therefore still endeavouring to achieve the ideal of maximum employment, in all spheres and for all kinds of workseekers. Maximum employment means economic prosperity for the country, as well as the individual, irrespective of his economic level.

The productivity of a country determines its growth and the prosperity of every inhabitant. A decisive factor in productivity is that the worker as a person must be afforded the opportunity for self-realisation. Effective career guidance, staff selection and selective employment play a key role in optimum manpower utilisation. A person who finds himself doing a job for which he has an aptitude and in which he has an interest, is a happy and satisfied worker.

If we compare ourselves with the other industrial countries in the world, South Africa is still very young in the industrial sphere, because South Africa’s industries only started developing after import control had been introduced here in the late forties. At that stage South Africa did not have enough trained manpower, and in the main we used trained immigrants. Today we are grateful for the role which these artisans played in the establishment of our industries.

In view of our particular population composition it was necessary and is still our duty to accommodate our own population groups in our industries. As a matter of fact, today people of colour constitute the largest part of our manpower component. Thousands of these workers are trained annually at Government level and in the private sector.

However, training is not the only factor which counts in the progress of an organisation or country. Every worker must be productive, and he must be used in that way. South Africa is still far behind other industrial countries as regards productivity. It is particularly worrying that improvements in productivity are not keeping pace with wage increases in the RSA.

If we cannot improve the productivity in South Africa, we will not be able to compete with other industrial countries. At present we have the advantage of a low rand-dollar rate of exchange which is to the advantage of our exports, but if the rate of exchange were to improve, our export market would be hard hit, because we would have to price ourselves out of the market.

At the moment South Africa has a growth rate of between 2% and 3%, but eventually we will need a growth rate of 5% to keep pace with the increase in our population. To achieve this, the population must save and growth must be supported by overseas capital.

Why has Africa failed in the field of industrial development in spite of the use of foreign capital. The reason for this is that their manpower is not trained and their productivity is low. The Government realises what role productivity plays in progress in the industrial field. I want to refer hon members to the NPI which consists mainly of members from the private sector. The objective of the NPI is to increase the standard of living of all inhabitants of South Africa by calling for actions which lead to greater effectiveness, efficacy and better utilisation of all resources.

During May 1987 the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council also decided to investigate the position of productivity in South Africa, and the factors which can influence and improve it. The committee came to realise that productivity had an effect on every human activity and every aspect of the country’s economic, social and political life. Because it lies at the root of the standard of living of every nation and every individual, in the final analysis all other structures and facilities in that sphere are dependent on it.

It is therefore very desirable for the Government to give attention to this. In consequence of the investigation the President’s Council’s committee made certain recommendations to increase productivity. They came to realise that this was a complex problem which could not be solved by simply waving a magic wand. For that reason there are certain structural problems which must first be solved and which must receive attention.

The first of these is the matter of management. It is the responsibility of the management of each undertaking to understand productivity and to know how to improve it continuously. It will then be the task of management to motivate and guide its work force. Unfortunately there is not enough middle management in South Africa, and attention will have to be given to this.

In the second place educational training goes hand in hand with productivity. Career guidance should enjoy a higher status in our schools, and together with this economy and communication. Owing to the fact that a large part of our work force is outside the influence of the formal system of education it will be necessary to develop extensive educational programmes which will include those workers and which will introduce literacy at that feasible level.

The committee also found that too little attention was being given to training in South Africa and that more training was needed to achieve higher productivity. As regards retraining there should also be constant adjustments to changing circumstances. This should be the motto of every member of every work force, because South Africa’s economic survival and progress depend on the success it can achieve in improving productivity.

I want to conclude with a quote from the latest report of the NPI which deals with work. I am quoting:

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to quote the very fine words which the previous hon Minister of Manpower uttered last year. I quote from Hansard, 4 May 1988, col 8876:

These are very laudable words indeed. I can only say that in pursuing this idea, the department can do very well for itself in enhancing the image of the country.

This department of the hon the Minister probably deals with the most sensitive and important matter in our country, namely our national economy. If there is no labour peace in South Africa, there cannot be stability in other spheres in the country. The good work of the department which is done with so much dedication, knowledge, understanding and vision is a source of great inspiration and a credit to South Africa.

This department deals with the many facets of labour requirements. It is not possible for me to deal with all these aspects and in the limited time I shall do my best to confine myself to only a few points of view.

In order for the Department of Manpower to extend its services to the community, the private entrepreneurs, industrialists and employers should be prevailed upon to register their labour requirements with the department, whether it is professional, skilled or semi-skilled. In this way the many unemployed who are recipients of unemployment benefits could be assisted. The burden placed on the Unemployment Insurance Fund could thus be alleviated.

I say this because newspapers carry these job vacancy advertisements but not all unemployed people are in a position to see these advertisements in the newspapers. The Department of Manpower could be more amenable to assist when notified of such vacancies.

In this way the Department of Manpower could co-ordinate labour resources. Again, in this annual report of the National Manpower Commission I am somewhat astounded to observe that there is a shortage of medical general practitioners. With the number of doctors trained overseas, particularly in the eastern countries, I am told that at the moment in South Africa there are 300 doctors who were trained in India who are without jobs. I then find it difficult to understand why the department should recruit doctors from overseas because of a shortage of doctors in South Africa.

I say this because the SA Medical and Dental Council’s stringent policies preclude these doctors trained in India from being so readily admitted into South Africa to practice as doctors. If the SA Medical and Dental Council relaxes its policy with regard to this matter, we could find ourselves in a much better position as far as doctors are concerned. These doctors who are walking the streets of South Africa could be appointed to those positions.

Another aspect I want to mention is that the department should concentrate more of its energy on training personnel in technology requiring a high level of skills. Our raw materials could then be used more profitably as finished products for export rather than exporting all the raw materials to overseas countries.

I concede that the exportation of raw materials brings in revenue for the growth of the country, but a finished product improves the revenue and also creates more job opportunities, thus reducing the number of unemployed. Therefore the source is the training facilities and that is where the Department of Manpower has to play its objective role.

I also observe that, according to private placement offices, there is an oversupply of staff among which, and I quote, are:

These graduates should be given opportunities of training in fields of technology requiring a high level of skills. That would reduce the number of immigrants in this field. With their academic qualifications these graduates could adapt themselves more comfortably to training in fields of technology requiring a high level of skills and could very easily be trained without much expense.

Talking about the immigrants, I am sad to say that some of them come here to bleed the country. They do not have the country’s interest at heart. As far as possible, therefore, it is better to train citizens of the RSA to do that work. Apart from some of these immigrants from overseas countries, there are immigrants from Zimbabwe who also behave in this way.

I think our work opportunities should be more readily opened up to South Africans in order for them to be accommodated. Job opportunities should be offered to South Africans first for the economy of this country to improve.

Finally, something interesting— the hon the Minister quoted it again last year—is the observation of the Sullivan Code. If we took note of these aspects I think we would all find the opportunities of employment in this country better than they are today. The Sullivan Code states:

• — Non-segregation of races in all eating, comfort, locker room and work facilities;
• — equal and fair appointment practices for all employees;
• — equal pay for all employees doing equal or comparable work for the same period of time;
• — initiating the development of training programmes that will prepare Blacks, Coloureds and Asians in substantial numbers for supervisory, administrative, clerical and technical jobs;
• — increasing the number of Blacks, Coloureds and Asians in management and supervisory positions;
• — improving the life of the employee outside the work environment in such areas as housing, transportation, recreation and health services.

Mr Chairman, let me say first of all to the hon member for Bayview that I want to thank him for the compliments and words of praise he addressed to the Department of Manpower. I think the department deserves that praise. I also thank him for his positive contribution to this debate. I think this serves as a good example to some other hon members of this hon Place who only criticise, without putting forward any sort of alternative.

*Mr Chairman, firstly I want to extend a very warm welcome to the hon the Acting Minister of Manpower. The hon the Minister also holds other posts, and I believe that he will achieve the same degree of success in this post as he did in the other posts he holds. I also want to express a few words of appreciation to the retired hon Minister of Manpower, Mr Pietie du Plessis. He was a good Minister, and disparaging remarks have been made about him here today. I merely want to say: I wonder whether the hon member for Brakpan, who made these disparaging remarks about him, would have done so in his presence. Being a debater of the calibre we know him to be, the former Minister would no doubt suitably have put the hon member for Brakpan in his place.

Mr Du Plessis is not absent today because he was a poor Minister of Manpower; it was for completely different reasons. I want to express my thanks to him and pay tribute to him for the way in which he ran this specific department.

Now I should like to deal with the hon member for Carletonville. That hon member told us here about the prospects which would be opened up for the worker in terms of CP policy. He then delivered an entire speech, at the end of which the prospect appeared to be that if the CP were to come to power, we would get the first Monday in September instead of 1 May as a holiday.

The workers will be covered. [Interjections.]

Both he and the hon member for Brakpan referred to the protection of the White worker. The hon member for Brakpan complained here about the economic policy and said the NP was leading the country to chaos, which would mean a decline in the standard of living. I want to tell them that our present cost of living index is largely attributable to the fact that we have for too long clung to the idea that we must draw all our skilled workers from the White work-force.

This led to low productivity. People no longer cared what became of productivity. It was very easy for an artisan to wave goodbye to one boss and to walk into the next job. There was a tremendous shortage of artisans, and we are still suffering from this problem today. If we had at that stage started to train people of other race groups as tradesmen, we would not have been in the situation we are in today.

The National Manpower Commission states that productivity does not keep pace with wage increases. The cost of labour per unit continues to rise. They point out that while these costs in countries such as Great Britain, Canada and the USA—our trading partners—have been levelling off since 1982, there continues to be an alarming upward trend in South Africa.

Where on earth would we find this imaginary country where there would only be White workers and where only the Whites would enjoy the privileges of protection?

If we look at the same report of the National Manpower Commission, we find that there was a fairly sharp decline in the number of persons who enrolled to become qualified tradesmen. The number declined from 8 185 in 1987 to 7 919 in 1988. The sustained drop over the past five years indicates that there were 12 161 enrolments in 1984, as against 7 919 last year. This is a decrease of approximately 33% in artisans alone.

Recently efforts have been made to improve the position in certain sectors where the shortage of apprentices was most severe—for example mining and the motor industry—by increasing the salaries of apprentices. However, numbers have not yet improved noticeably.

Let us examine the number of White pupils in primary schools—I am specifically directing this at the CP, which thinks that one can govern oneself and that one can run one’s businesses, factories and industries with Whites alone. We find that the numbers have been dropping over the past three years. In addition to this the increase in the number of White pupils who enrolled at primary schools for the first time, was only 1,8%, as against 24,9% among the Coloureds and 42% among the Blacks. The greatest increase in numbers was among Black pupils. This is where we shall eventually have to get our skilled labour from if this country is to grow. We cannot hope for an increasing growth rate in South Africa with declining qualifications among artisans. We shall have to do something to improve the numbers of our artisans.

Let us examine our technikons. Thirty-two per cent of the increase of 6 600 at technikons last year were Blacks. If this is the case, I want to tell hon members what the percentage increases were. The percentage of Blacks at our technikons increased from 6% in 1986 to 9% in 1987 and 11% in 1988. I merely want to say that if we wanted to and could turn the fine dream of coping without the labour resources—and the skilled labour resources—of the non-Whites in South Africa, into a reality, we would change the whole of South Africa into a Boksburg or a Carletonville.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a privilege for me to be able to speak after the hon member for Kuruman. In the first place I wish to associate myself with previous speakers and I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs on his appointment as Acting Minister of Manpower. We wish him all the best with this additional task and trust that everything will go very well for him in his new capacity as Acting Minister in this important post. As a matter of fact, he has already dealt with similar problems in the past, such as strikes on the Railways. Now, however, he will possibly have to contend with strikes in factories.

I also wish to express my thanks to the department for such a comprehensive annual report. It would appear to me that we have received a wider and more comprehensive exposition this year than ever before.

I note something in the report which looks very encouraging, namely on page 12 under the heading “Co-operation with the private sector”. I note in paragraph 1.11 that during 1988 a manpower conference was arranged to which the leaders of employer organisations, large employers and trade unions were invited to hold discussions with the State President and hon members of the Cabinet on matters of common interest. These discussions were so constructive and so successful that I see in paragraph 1.16 of the report that in comparison with 1987-88 there was an 80% decrease in the number of strikes. This is good news. The decrease in the number of strikes, particularly in the manufacturing industry, may also be attributed to the Labour Relations Amendment Act, Act No 118 of 1987, which was piloted through Parliament in 1987.

My time is limited, but I should also like to address a few other aspects of this Vote. The training, and particularly the in-service training, of tradesmen is very near to my heart. I was sorry to note in the report that there has actually been a decrease in the number of registered contracts of apprenticeship. However, it is encouraging to note that the new training system for tradesmen is taking shape. Perhaps the hon the Minister could just give me an explanation in his reply. I note in paragraph 1.27 of the report, that almost 40 000 employees were trained at group training centres by the private sector during 1988. I should just like to know from the hon the Minister whether this training by the private sector means in-service training or whether the private sector is being subsidised.

I now come to my part of the world. I think the hon the Minister does, in fact, know the Nama-qualand area. In the mining town of O’Kiep there is, in fact, a training centre for tradesmen which functions under the control of the O’Kiep copper company. Is an annual subsidy also awarded to this institution? Some really good results are being produced there.

When dealing with the Bill relating to the Alexander Bay Development Corporation I gathered a few statistics which indicated, inter alia, that there are at present 1 962 workers in service at the State Alluvial Diggings at Alexander Bay and that apart from the 15 public servants, there are 487 Whites and 460 Coloured workers. Among these virtually equal numbers of Whites and Coloureds there are 60 apprentices, but I have been unable to ascertain whether there are, in fact, any Coloured apprentices included in this figure. If not, I should like to ask the hon the Acting Minister that this be brought into line with the other companies, such as O’Kiep Copper and Aggenys, for example, and that Coloured apprentices should be sent to the O’Kiep Training Centre for training. We should also like to see our own people in top posts. We grant all of our own people the right to be able to use their talents to the full in this country of ours and at the same time to be more productive.

In the present financial year, R6 million less has been appropriated under Vote 10—“Manpower”, Programme 4: Training, for the year ending 31 March 1990. Will this decrease not have a negative effect on the training of tradesmen? In my view this could possibly be the case. It is indeed encouraging to note in the report that fewer unemployed persons were registered and that more unemployed persons were placed in service.

I should like to concentrate briefly on Vote 10—“Manpower”, Programme 1: Administration. There appears to be an increase of R6 million for this financial year, but I note in the report that it was mentioned in the previous year’s annual report that 45,32% of the department’s posts were filled by ladies. I think an hon member has already mentioned this. The position has now improved to such an extent that 42,30% of the department’s posts are at present filled by men, and 46,16% by ladies. Tragically enough, 11,54% of the department’s posts are, in fact, still vacant. Once again I should like to ask the hon the Acting Minister how many of these administrative posts, if any, are filled by people of colour. If not, why are people of colour— Coloureds and Indians—not also trained to fill such posts? I note that recruitment is, in fact, taking place among the population groups, and it is for this reason that I am asking this question. Apart from the academic qualifications, what other requirements must be complied with?

We still remember the slogan of the Department of Manpower: Training—Key to the Future. It is in the interests of the country that the hon the Minister should attempt to remedy this shortcoming. The LP is prepared, as it has always been, to fight fiercely, with all the energy at our disposal, in the interests of the upliftment of our people, even at the labour level.

Mr Chairman, it is an exceptional privilege to speak after the hon member for Springbok. I cannot find any fault with his delivery and I believe the questions he put will be answered by the hon the acting Minister.

I also associate myself with the good wishes expressed to the newly appointed Director-General, as well as the hon the Acting Minister. Allow me also to express a word of appreciation in respect of the retired Director-General, Dr Piet van der Merwe. He rendered excellent service to this department for many years.

In the short time at my disposal I want to refer briefly to one of the statutory bodies, viz the National Manpower Commission. I do this for two reasons. On the one hand I do so in order to draw the attention of the Committee once again to the important task of the commission, and on the other just to draw the attention of the CP to the realities of South Africa once again. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville can tell us whether they are going to make provision in terms of their labour policy for a national manpower commission. Perhaps the hon member for Brakpan can help him.

Mr Chairman, may I reply to him?

Order! Does the hon member for Carletonville want to put a question or raise a point of order?

The hon member asked me a question. May I reply to him?

Order! No, the hon member for Carletonville may not reply to him now.

Mr Chairman, the CP has no answer to this reality in respect of the labour sphere in South Africa. They cannot answer this simple question as to whether they are also going to make provision in their manpower policy for a national manpower commission.

That is not true, and you know it?

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis must withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

It is obvious why the CP cannot reply. Employers and employees serve on the National Manpower Commission in equal numbers. That is precisely where they are no longer keeping up with the realities of South Africa.

Since its inception in 1979, the National Manpower Commission has made a valuable contribution to manpower in the Republic of South Africa. In terms of law the NMC has to investigate any matter it deems necessary and make recommendations to the Minister concerning any labour matter, including labour policy. Consequently the NMC pays attention to such basic aspects as manpower development, utilisation and preservation.

It can be assumed without any fear of contradiction that the general objective in the economic sphere is an improvement in the standard of living of all—and I emphasise this word— the inhabitants of South Africa. This objective is directly related inter alia to the objective of providing sufficient employment opportunities to those who are eager to work.

One of the aspects to which the NMC paid attention during the past year and on which they completed a report was the demand for and supply of manpower. The aim of the report was not to make predictions, but to identify certain deficiencies that could receive further attention. The economically active population of South Africa—excluding the TBVC countries— amounted to almost 10,7 million people in June 1988. Whites made up approximately 19% of this figure, and Blacks 66,5%. The economically active population increased by approximately 3,52% per annum between 1980 and 1988.

The HSRC’s Institute for Sociological and Demographic Research—Isodem—calculated that between 1985 and 1995 the White population would grow by approximately 0,7% per annum, the Coloured population by 1,9%, the Asian population by 1,6% and the Black population by 3,1%. The total population growth during that period will be 2,7%. By using these statistics the HSRC’s Institute for Labour Economics Research—ILER—determined that the economically active population would show the following annual growth between 1985 and 1995: The Whites by 1,4%, the Coloureds by 1,3, the Asians by 2,4% and the Blacks by 3,2%, amounting to a total growth of 2,8%.

The implication is that the total economically active population will increase by approximately 376 000 people per year, or by 1 400 every working day. At an expected real growth of 2,7% per annum in the gross domestic product between 1986 and 1995, the expected growth in the demand for manpower will be approximately 1,3% per annum. The demand for labour according to the level of skill will increase, in correspondence with the increasing demand for high-level manpower that has been experienced worldwide.

Whereas high-level manpower makes up approximately 14% of the work force in the non-agricultural sectors at present, it is expected to be approximately 18% in 1995.

The comparison of future supply with demand shows in the first place that the formal economy is not in any way going to supply sufficient employment opportunities to keep up with the growing supply of manpower. In the second place, the shortages with regard to high-level manpower will continue. In the third place a relatively larger increase in the oversupply of mid-level manpower as well as low-level manpower may be expected. A particularly important consideration in the oversupply of mid-level manpower is the quality of the matriculants who will be trained in the labour field.

A comparison between the future demand for and supply of manpower, to which I have referred, shows that the formal economy will not provide sufficient employment opportunities for the country’s potential employees. One would need an economic growth rate of almost 5% per annum merely to accommodate the annual flow of new workers to the labour market.

In this connection we should perhaps reflect once again on what the hon the Minister of Finance said during his Budget speech. I quote:

For some time there has been a need to indicate which professions are experiencing an exceptionally serious shortage of manpower. The regular manpower surveys do not comply with this need, because they measure only vacancies and give no indication of which vacancies it is exceptionally difficult to fill. During the past year the NMC has undertaken a further investigation in co-operation with the numerous enterprises that undertook regular recruitment campaigns abroad, with a view to immigration. On the basis of these results, 36 professions in which constant shortages are experienced were identified. These groups include most categories of engineers, technicians, technologists, computer and other scientific personnel.

In conclusion, the recommendation of a President’s Council committee that the rationalisation of the board and other statutory bodies such as the NMC should not take place at this stage, but that a greater degree of co-ordination should be promoted, is widely welcomed. That is also the view of the NMC. The reason is obvious, viz that it would not be advisable to politicise the labour sphere any further.

On behalf of this side of the Committee, I express our thanks and appreciation for the valuable contribution made by the NMC once again during the past year.

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to address the problem of the deteriorating labour relations situation which is rapidly assuming alarming proportions country-wide. If the aim as stated in programme 2 of the Manpower Vote is really to bring about and maintain industrial peace, one can only come to the conclusion that the Government has failed miserably.

It has long been the Government’s stated policy not to interfere in labour disputes. What they have in effect been saying is that Parliament makes the laws and lays down the ground rules for industrial relations. How the rules are implemented is the business of employers and employees, it is not our business.

There is no doubt in my mind that South Africa has one of the most advanced sets of labour laws which, if properly applied, could and should lead to industrial peace. However, we must be realistic and accept that labour issues, like many other issues, have been politicised for the simple reason that the persons affected are not involved in the law-making process.

It must therefore also be accepted that a large section of the country’s most valuable asset, namely our human resources—our workers— have been mobilised to use their bargaining power to gain political rights. This is borne out by the fact that according to a Department of Manpower report of 1988 almost all workers involved in strikes and work stoppages were persons other than White. In 1988, 945 strikes involved 15 693 Coloureds, 5 503 Asians, 127 635 Blacks and only 138 Whites. Work stoppages involved 880 Coloureds, 805 Asians, 11 018 Blacks and only seven Whites.

It is futile for the Government to restrict trade union organisations like Cosatu because their activities will continue. Besides the adverse effect it will have on the financial resources of both workers and employers, the whole question of labour unrest will come home to roost as far as the Government is concerned, in that it will drastically affect the country’s economy, to put it mildly.

The writing is on the wall when one reads an article in The Argus of 7 March 1989. Its headline reads: “Unions warn of a national strike” and I quote from it as follows:

The article goes on to say:

I therefore urge the hon the Acting Minister not to leave the matter of labour relations between employers and employees, but to get involved in talks with the labour organisations—call them extra-parliamentary organisations if you like—so as to prevent a further deterioration in the country’s economy. I urge the hon the Acting Minister to act now, because the Government has a long history of reluctance to act decisively. It has a long history of overcautiousness to act until matters have got completely out of hand.

I can recall when the Bill granting trade union rights to the Black workers was before Parliament in 1979. I was a member of the Trade Union Council of the South African Parliamentary Liaison Committee at the time and there being no Joint Committee on Manpower, we discussed the Bill with the then Opposition PFP and NRP labour committees. Numerous amendments were proposed but they were all rejected by the NP.

The end result was an Act which excluded all commuters or “pendelaars” from joining a trade union. This applied to all workers who commuted from the neighbouring states to the industrial areas such as the Vaal Triangle and Durban-Pinetown. It effectively excluded some 60% of Black workers from trade union membership. It was only after strong representations by both the trade unions and employer organisations that discussions were initiated by the then Minister of Manpower, Mr Fanie Botha, and that the Act was amended in 1980.

The initiatives in labour relations by the then Minister Fanie Botha were widely acclaimed, but the pity is that at the time no effort was made to initiate political rights for Blacks. Had this happened, I am sure we would not have been in the precarious industrial and human relations situation in which we find ourselves today.

I therefore again urge the hon the Minister to enter into tripartite talks with labour and management now, before it is too late.

I now want to address the matter of manpower training. The Government’s policy in this regard is the following, and I quote from the 1988 report of the Department of Manpower:

It is time that the Government realised that that kind of involvement is simply not enough. It is time that the Government became actively involved in manpower training, because I am convinced that employers alone are simply not going to produce sufficient skilled labour for the country’s long-term needs.

I have been involved in industry long enough to know that employers only train for their own immediate needs and are not over-concerned with the manpower needs of the country as a whole. Therefore the question that arises, is what is being done about the reliable projection that the economically active population will grow by 2,8% between 1985 and 1995. That implies 376 000 people every year or 1 400 people every working day!

Even more seriously, what is being done about the projection that by the year 2000, 80% of the economically active population will be other than White? It is this projection that needs to be addressed by the Government, and not only by employers, because the Government is responsible for the situation where we have a shortage of skilled labour and a vast reservoir of unskilled labour consisting of people other than Whites. I say this because the Government failed to become actively involved in training after the scrapping of job reservation.

It is imperative for the Department of Manpower to become actively involved in artisan and high-technology training to prevent the country’s economy from stagnating completely by the year 2000.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it appropriate for the air conditioning to be switched off while the House is sitting?

Order! That is not a valid point of order, but it is a matter that can be attended to.

Mr Chairman, I agree with certain standpoints held by the hon member for Belhar, for example that South Africa has among the most advanced labour legislation in the world. I shall pay some attention to that in a moment.

I have my doubts about certain other standpoints he stated. In my opinion the Government in South Africa should not involve itself in dispute settlement. The Government is there merely to make the machinery for the settlement of disputes available in consultation with employers and employees. Once that has been done, the Government must leave it to the available machinery to settle the disputes. I do not think any country’s government should interfere in order to resolve disputes.

I should like to devote a few moments to the hon member for Carletonville. I heard that he had made his farewell speech here today, because we hear the voters of Carletonville are going to send Mr Louis Nel back after the general election to come and represent Carletonville here in Parliament.

With his song?

The voters of Carletonville no longer want the hon member here, because they say: If that is what he and the CP did in Carletonville, what is the CP going to do to South Africa if they should come into power?

Must he rather stand in Sasolburg?

This hon member was in fact sent to Sasolburg to give me a run for my money, but he attracted only 19 people.

Never mind, Louis Stofberg will put you in your place!

That proves that we are often going to have this kind of challenge, because the CP simply no longer attracts people to their meetings.

South Africa’s voters have realised that the CP’s policy is not going to work, and they are no longer interested in what they have to say. The hon member for Carletonville, as the so-called intercessor for the White employees, really deserves a monument. We are pleased that it was pre-eminently he who opened thousands of people’s eyes with his CP carryings-on in Carletonville. His greatest absurdity was probably his statement that any businessman who wants to do business with Blacks should move his business to the location. He demonstrated what the CP’s policy would cost South Africa with regard to labour relations. The price of that is simply too high.

The racial friction and economic misery the CP has caused in Carletonville, has proved that every young man who leaves school or college or university to do his national service next year, and votes CP this year, will be voting for having his national service increased from two to five years in order to control the racial unrest in South Africa under a CP government, and to satisfy the war-mindedness of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly when it comes to South West Africa. [Interjections.]

Carletonville has proved that every pensioner who votes CP will be voting for his or her savings to be worth nothing in two years’ time, because South Africa’s inflation rate under a CP government will increase from 13% today to 500% per year.

Carletonville has proved that every young man and woman who votes CP this year and has to seek a job next year is going to vote simply never to get a job. A CP government will ensure that South Africa’s real growth rate of 2% over the past few years will drop to minus 5%, thus destroying even existing employment opportunities.

Carletonville has proved that all working men and women who vote CP this year, will be voting for possibly losing their jobs next year, and for having their children hungry on the streets, because South Africa’s unemployment rate under a White CP government will rocket.

You must be naive if you think the voters are going to believe that!

Mr Chairman, we bid farewell to the hon member for Carletonville. We thank him for the lesson he came to teach the White voters in Parliament, and we wish him a peaceful old age. We also thank the CP leadership for having the hon member for Carletonville as a candidate to come and demonstrate how CP policy fails in practice.

In my opinion the closer definition of the principle of fairness in the Labour Relations Act and the process of dispute settlement between employer and employee in South Africa has in fact placed us at the forefront of the world.

Suspicion-mongering, especially among certain trade unions which do not always have only the interests of their members at heart, is failing. The new labour dispensation has been in progress for some months now, and more and more employers as well as employees are beginning to realise that these amendments to the Act create effective and meaningful guidelines to facilitate and simplify dispute settlement.

A labour practice such as the dismissal of an employee may be justified in terms of common law, but may be found to be unfair by an industrial court. Employees feel very secure knowing that a dismissal must not only be valid, but also fair. The industrial court judges the fairness of a labour practice not only in terms of substantive factors, but also in terms of so-called procedural factors.

It is important to note that the dismissal of an employee must not only be based on the violation of an essential provision of his service contract, but that the correct procedures must be adopted when an employer decides to dismiss an employee. The employee must be informed on the nature of his offence, for example, and must receive notice that an investigation and a disciplinary hearing will take place. The dismissed employee must also have the right to examine the findings of the investigation and to appeal.

One often finds these days that businessmen and industrialists with relatively small businesses become flustered when they are approached by a trade union with regard to some or other labour dispute. Employers with many employees often have their own labour advisers, or make use of consultants to conduct labour negotiations with trade unions or individual employees. Small employers, however, often do not want to make use of the available dispute settlement machinery when labour disputes with their employees arise. Some of them are even ignorant of the protection employers enjoy against threats or blackmail by militant trade unions, for example. All employers have access to an industrial board in the area in which such a board exists for the relevant enterprise, industry, business or profession. Officials from the Department of Manpower can also assist employers with the necessary advice when they experience problems with alleged unfair labour practices.

Small employers can make sure that they do not become involved in unexpected labour disputes with trade unions by ensuring that they are well acquainted with the industrial legislation that is applicable to them, including industrial board agreements and wage determinations; that they have a written disciplinary procedure agreed upon with their employees; that they have established an agreed written procedure with regard to grievances; that a representative or working committee is established which can negotiate with the management; that a written service contract has been concluded with every employee; and that personal records of employees are kept. It is also important to have regular communication with employees and to keep them informed on what is going on in the business.

Mr Chairman, the point of order that was taken by my colleague, the hon member for Yeoville, has obviously had a result and we can now experience the air conditioning working. I want to thank him for that.

A National Manpower Commission inquiry into the position of farm workers was launched in May 1982. Its report was presented to this Government in December 1985. To date, despite repeated calls from several sources, including myself, this report remains unpublished. The official reason given for this inordinate delay is that consultations with organised agriculture are still in progress. In August 1987 I was told by the then Minister that due to the nature and extent of the consultations and the geographical diversity, it was not possible to give me any indication as to when finality would be reached in the necessary negotiations with the interested parties. This was some 18 months ago, and I find it an unacceptable reason for the non-release of that report.

I believe that speculation has it that the report recommends that farm workers be given the right to form trade unions. The question that begs to be answered is this: Is the Government under pressure from the conservative agricultural sector to delay publication of the report? The hon the Minister needs to answer this question and to tell us when we may expect the release of the report.

We all know that farm workers have neither the protection of the Labour Relations Act nor that of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, which means that their conditions of employment are governed only by common law. This means that they cannot use the collective bargaining or dispute settlement machinery provided by the former Act, nor the protection of the latter which provides minimum working conditions.

The fact of the matter is that Cosatu has undertaken to mobilise farm workers and my advice to the farming community is that they should now accept the inevitable and reform while they hold the advantage rather than be forced to reform when it might not suit them.

There is no question that pressure on farmers to acknowledge unions is likely to mount because, as we all know, a Cosatu founding resolution commits that congress to unionizing farm workers. Prohibiting trade unions will not abolish the workers’ urge to form them, but will force them to go underground. This is something that we do not wish to see.

Insofar as the new Labour Relations Amendment Act which was introduced last year is concerned, I would just like to make the point that despite the fact that it was not greeted with universal enthusiasm, the industrial courts have been kept very busy. Indeed it has been estimated that by the end of the year they will have had some 9 000 actions. It has been reported that labour experts are confused by what they see as conflicting rulings by different courts. I believe that if these courts are to fulfil their role effectively, it is vital that their judgements have some form of conformity. This is a matter that needs the urgent attention of the hon the Acting Minister.

An hon member referred to the fact that Black trade unions had become politicized. I must agree with that hon member that the reason why Black trade unions have in fact become that politicized, is that in terms of the situation as we find it in the country at present, trade unions are the only place where there can be some form of venting of feelings with regard to the lack of political rights for Black people. I would like to make the point this afternoon that the hon the Acting Minister will in fact address this point when he addresses his Cabinet colleagues and this would make his task that much easier.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I should just like to make a few remarks.

Hon members already know that Mr Fanie van der Merwe, the Director-General of Justice for the past four years, was appointed in January 1989 as head of the newly-founded Constitutional Development Service. It was with mixed feelings that the Department of Justice and I took leave of him after more than 30 years’ service with the Department of Justice. It is consequently a pleasure for me to announce that the hon the State President has awarded him the title of Senior Consultus, or senior advocate, on the grounds of his extensive legal knowledge and his practical contribution to the development of law in the Republic of South Africa. He is still applying this knowledge and this ability daily, and the aforementioned award is considered to be of practical importance for the application of the law in South Africa.

I might also mention that the hon the State President made similar awards in the past to the former Secretary of Justice, Adv Oberholzer, and the former Director-General of Justice, Adv Coetzer, SC. I wish to emphasise that this award to Mr Van der Merwe, as in the other cases as well, was based on the status he had attained in the eyes and experience of his contemporaries who have to do with the application of the law. It also gives me pleasure to announce that the hon the State President has awarded the title of Senior Consultus to two of South Africa’s best known and outstanding academics, Prof Johannes Christiaan de Wet—better known as J C de Wet—and Prof Ellison Kahn. As far as is known, this distinction has been awarded to only two other academics in the history of South Africa, namely George Wille and Eric Emmett, the last such award, that to Eric Emmett, having taken place between the years 1938 and 1945. I wish to place very strong emphasis on the fact that these awards were made on the basis of these two gentlemen’s proven knowledge of the law, their ability to apply their knowledge in practice, and their ability and achievements in conveying legal doctrines to others. Both gentlemen are renowned professors of law and have kept pace with the needs of the times. They are, of course, also admitted advocates.

In Mr Van der Merwe’s place I welcome today a well-known figure in Justice circles, Mr Jasper Noeth. Mr Noeth has been in the service of the Department of Justice for 31 years now. He was the chief researcher of the Hoexter Commission and also played a leading role in the implementation of the small claims courts. He is someone who strives for the accessibility of our courts and he is an eminent example of someone who concerns himself with the welfare of his officials. I have worked with him for many years and I look forward to a fruitful association with him.

I also welcome Mr J J du Plessis, better known as Hans du Plessis, as Deputy Director-General of Justice. At present he is in control of, inter alia, the Security Legislation Branch. He has been an attorney for approximately 30 years, in which time he has served for more than 20 years as a state attorney. During this period he was chief state attorney for three years. Due to his insight and experience he has already made his mark in our state administration and I bid him a hearty welcome.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has allocated the DP certain seating in this Chamber for this debate. Mr Chairman, as you will note we cannot seat our members as hon members of other political parties are sitting in the benches that were allocated to us. I would be very grateful if you could arrange that our seating is given to us.

Order! I do not think it behoves the Chairman of this Extended Public Committee to make the seating arrangements. This matter should be sorted out by the Whips and I leave it in their capable hands.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the words of congratulation conveyed by the hon the Minister to various people, and I wish to congratulate Mr Van der Merwe, Prof Kahn and Prof J C de Wet on the distinction they have attained. I am sure they will all be worthy of that distinction.

It is a particular pleasure for me to welcome Messrs Noeth and Du Plessis here. I can assure the hon the Minister that in those two people, he probably has some of the best material in the Public Service to assist him, and we are all proud of the fact that they are in the Department of Justice and that they have taken their places here.

I also wish to congratulate the honourable Mr Justice Corbett on his appointment as Chief Justice, and I also want to pay tribute on this occasion to Mr Justice Rabie who held that post for a long time.

I want to pay tribute to all judges, magistrates, officials, advocates, attorneys and law-abiding citizens who assisted in establishing a healthy administration of justice during the past year. When one praises hon members in this House, it would appear to me that one is holding a political funeral and for this reason the hon the Minister will forgive me, and will probably feel honoured if I do not praise him at this stage. We do not wish to get rid of him at this stage; we shall probably merely alter his portfolio to that of an ordinary member.

I want to say something about recess times in the Supreme Court. Confusion sometimes arises in that people think that when there is a recess in the Supreme Court, all work in the Supreme Court comes to a standstill. That is not so. Every judge performs at least a week or two of recess service regardless of how long the recess is. Another aspect is that when a recess arrives, there are always reserved judgments that first have to be finalised.

One must not lose sight of the great deal of reading which judges and magistrates have to do in their spare time, or of the reading in respect of the motions. In the TPD, for example, there were over 12 764 motions, and over 20 000 in the Witwatersrand. If one takes into account that that motion roll normally closes on a Friday afternoon and that those cases come up on Tuesday, this means that a judge has to prepare anything from 250 to 400 motions over a weekend. I can assure hon members that this means that he will seldom get out of the house.

Aside from this there are appeals and reviews. There are cases such as the Delmas case—if I may call it that—in which there were 23 000 pages of testimony and 20 000 pages of documentary evidence, and one can therefore imagine that a judge cannot do those enormous amounts of work if he is starting another case on the following day. In the Transvaal it works in such a way that the moment one case has been disposed of, the judge begins with the next case. He does not have time to prepare judgments. During the past year the regional magistrates spent 17 236 hours on the preparation of judgments alone.

It is a pleasure for me to repeat the same appeal I made last year. I am sorry that it has to be repeated. The appeal is for a better dispensation for registrars. According to the Hefer Report, approximately R23 000 is required to create a registrar’s post. Those people require expertise. They have to give rulings on valuations which can sometimes amount to hundreds of thousands of rand. I really think they deserve a better deal in the Department of Justice.

A further aspect which I hope we shall not talk about next year either, apart from according it praise, is the Supreme Court Building in Pretoria. For a quite a number of years now we have been promised that a start is to be made on the building, and in the meantime it is costing the State a tremendous amount of money. The rental amounts to R687 336 per annum. Therefore, an amount in excess of R57 000 per month is at present being spent on the present Mutual & Federal Building.

Another aspect I should like to touch on, is the question of remission of sentences or convictions so that they will later no longer appear on a person’s record. As an example of this I am thinking of the young boy who has committed a theft of fruit or who, in his impetuosity, has committed a small offence, and 10 or 20 years later that same conviction still appears on his record of convictions. I should like to ask whether consideration could not be given to appointing a remission board of approximately three members. They could then investigate such cases and, in worthy cases, they could effect a total remission of such previous convictions.

This morning I also saw Commissioner Harms say on TV that we should not concern ourselves about corruption. I found this heartening and reassuring, just as heartening and reassuring as it would have been if a Std 8 girl had told her father: “Do not worry, Dad. I am only ever so slightly pregnant”.

I find it regrettable that a judge should have made a statement shortly before an election with regard to a subject which is apparently going to be a bone of contention in the political sphere during the election. The task of the commissioner was to investigate certain aspects of corruption. Many other commissions are investigating other aspects. We are grateful for the reports he has issued and for those he will yet issue. That completes his function. He may confidently leave the interpretation of his findings, insofar as they have political repercussions, to the public.

I think comparisons are odious and it is not fitting to compare a state of affairs in South Africa with one in Greece, for example, or the USA or other countries, as he did, because later we could come along and compare terrorism here with that in Northern Ireland or some South American states or Lebanon, for example, and say that it is not so bad here.

Next I should like to say something about the question of stock theft. In the South-Eastern Transvaal alone stock theft during the past year has been of such a nature that 3 510 cattle, 11 381 sheep and 1172 other stock were reported to the police at that unit as stolen. This entails damages of over R6 million. One must consider whether the penalties imposed for stock theft should not be reviewed, because apparently they do not form a deterrent to this particular crime, which is difficult to trace.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister to explain to us whether it is policy, or when it is policy, and when it will be permissible for TV to make recordings in a court of law. In the years in which we have had experience of cases appearing in court, I have never come across an instance of an accused or prospective accused being shown, and of being able to look at how his parents react to this and to hear what he says. There is something I want to tell the hon the Minister—I am sure I shall not find him unsympathetic—and that is that this is not the type of thing we want in South Africa, because what applies to one today, could also apply to the other tomorrow, and I should not like to see us allow that type of cinema trial in South Africa.

I want to repeat what we asked for last year as well, namely that we should look at the extent to which Justice could be of assistance in the tracing mechanism in maintenance cases. Persons who evade their duty of maintenance towards their children are a burden to the State and are indeed not worthy of being called parents. I know we have spoken about the introduction of community service sentences. I am pleased that the hon the Minister has also made progress in this regard with the introduction of community service sentences, because it is no use sending such parents to jail and causing them to lose their jobs, or imposing fines on them, because in this way one still harms the child in the long run.

I am pleased to see that the question of surrogate motherhood is once again being investigated. I am also pleased that the statement which I made when that legislation was discussed, has now indeed been referred to the South African Law Commission. It is just fortunate that that legislation was not yet in operation, for otherwise those Tzaneen children would have been the legal children of their grandmother and grandfather and not of their biological father and mother. This must be looked into quickly before it is perhaps found later on that someone may marry his own child if it is his wife’s sister and the grandmother’s child.

Next I want to ask the hon the Minister to give serious attention to the question of corruption in insolvent estates. I think he is aware of the fact that there are many complaints about this, in particular regarding the method which may be followed in respect of the realisation of the assets of an insolvent person. It is a fact that the curator or the liquidator may obtain a power of attorney to sell them by private treaty or to dispose of them in any other manner. I want to assure hon members of the fact that the public has a great number of complaints with regard to how the insolvent person’s assets are sold and what prices are paid when they are sold by private treaty, and even about tenders which are not brought to the attention of the public.

Something else which appeared in the newspapers during the past week, and particularly on Sunday—I am referring to the Sunday Tribune— is Mr Justice Didcott’s views on capital punishment. I would like to ask that we should not decide this aspect by way of newspaper reports. It is true that capital punishment is always a sensitive matter. However, if we were to do away with capital punishment, we would have to take great care not to have more “Screwdriver” Van der Merwe and Van der Westhuizen cases in society. I think the present system, namely that capital punishment is imposed for murder except in those instances in which the judge finds that the moral blameworthiness of the accused has been reduced, is a good system. This gives us legal certainty, a norm in accordance with which judges can work. Then we also still have the watchful eye of the Executive Council which can ensure that commutation or remission of the death sentence is extended in those instances in which they give the final decision after a thorough investigation and after considering facts which may not always come to light in a court case. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to take the opportunity in this debate to compliment the new Director-General of the Department of Justice and to welcome him. At the same time I want to pay tribute to the former Director-General, Mr S S van der Merwe, who rendered valuable services to the department. I also wish to compliment and congratulate the hon the Minister on the manner in which he runs this department. It is like a well-oiled machine which produces valuable results.

One of the important issues that the department has dealt with is the appointment of the Hoexter Commission which came up with some recommendations insofar as the Magistrates’ Courts Act is concerned. The Act was accordingly amended, which determined the monetary jurisdiction limits insofar as certain courses of action in the magistrates’ courts as well as punitive jurisdiction with regard to fines of lower courts are concerned. The hon the Minister did not merely leave it at that, but further reports followed and brought about further improvements to the magistrates’ courts. As a result, there is a Bill before the joint committee today, and I hope the Bill will come before Parliament for consideration.

The Bill that is before the joint committee protects members of the public from exploitation. It also makes provision for attorneys who are professionally qualified to attend to matters concerning collection. There are many firms that go about carrying out collections in respect of debtors’ matters and as a result it was found that quite a number of people lost money and were not professionally represented.

I also want to pay tribute to the chairman of the joint committee, Mr Schutte, and the members of his committee. This particular joint committee can be regarded as the engine-room of the Department of Justice. I think the valuable work done and particularly the guidance given by the chairman who is a highly qualified lawyer help considerably towards considering the various measures that come before the joint committee.

I also wish to pay tribute to some of the legal advisors who brief the committee on various measures that come before it. I make particular reference to Adv Rudman who has been rendering humane services as far as the department is concerned.

I also wish to refer to the small claims court which is a very important court as far as the poor and small man is concerned. I think the enactment of the legislation to initiate the small claims courts brought about immense relief to many people in the various communities. The people are satisfied.

I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister to pay attention to the fact that there are a number of qualified Indian attorneys of long standing. I would be pleased if he would look into the question of appointing some of these attorneys as commissioners of the small claims courts.

The other point is that we have the Department of Justice in various districts. I want to refer to the particular district of Chatsworth where there are a number of Indians who are professionally employed. There are magistrates of long standing and who have been employed for a long time. I would be pleased if the hon the Minister would look into the question of employing or upgrading some of the positions, particularly in regard to finding a senior magistrate for the district of Chatsworth.

I also want to compliment the hon the Minister on the manner in which he handled some of these commissions, particularly the Harms Commission. When a decision was made by the Attorney-General to withdraw charges against Ver-maas, his immediate action caused Vermaas to be put into the position where charges were preferred against him.

The other matter concerns the James Commission which sat in Durban and which did a valuable piece of work. The report was presented to Parliament on 15 January. The report is with the Attorney-General. I would like to see if there are any criminal proceedings in the matter and would like the hon the Minister to see that such proceedings are brought before the court at the earliest.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon member Mr Thaver for his kind words.

*With reference to what the hon member for Bethal said in respect of Mr Justice Harms, I merely want to tell him that all Mr Justice Harms did was to issue a warning against overreacting in respect of corruption. That is in fact what the hon member for Bethal did today without referring to the merits. It is a sad day when a judge can no longer express a general opinion about offences. I shall address him later on my speech on the matter of corruption.

I also want to congratulate our new Director-General, Mr Noeth, very much and welcome him to his new post. I want to assure him of the co-operation of this side of the House in his new post. I cannot but follow the hon the Minister and express our thanks to the former Director-General, Mr Fanie van der Merwe. Mr Van der Merwe really left his mark in the department. He has a calm and unbiased thoroughness which cannot easily be equalled. As such he is a sought after person and we can understand that another department needs him. Unfortunately this was not a promotion, because I cannot see how a transfer from this department can be a promotion. We nevertheless wish him everything of the best in his new position.

†We have not only lost a director-general but we have also lost the former spokesman on justice for the PFP, the hon member for Sandton. I cannot but also thank him for his contribution. In this House we have disagreed more often than we have agreed but he certainly made a very substantial contribution—especially in the past few years—on a number of issues and we must thank him for that.

I would also like to welcome the new spokesman for the DP, the hon member for Berea, as well as the hon member for Bonteheuwel and the hon member Mr Thaver, who are also new spokesmen in this debate.

*What particularly struck me when I read through the annual report was the tremendous reform which has taken place in the legal sphere in recent years. This covers a very wide field, from the greater accessibility of the courts, cheaper litigation made possible by the increase in jurisdictional limits, the simplification of procedures by means of far-reaching reform in respect of the status of women, children and persons in general, right up to the law of evidence. These matters will be debated by the hon members for Umbilo, Sundays River and Vryburg, as will further amendments and reforms which must be accomplished.

The point I should like to make is that the South African Law Commission played a very big role in this reform. However, if it had not been for the initiative and the supervision of the hon the Minister in this connection, it would definitely not have got very far. I therefore want to submit that most of the recognition for this reform must go to the hon the Minister, and we must thank him for that.

This brings me to the Joint Committee on Justice, and I should also like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of this joint committee for their contributions during the past year We frequently disagreed. I think we tried to keep politics out of the committee. We argued rationally and I believe we achieved better legislation. During the past three years we have dealt with no fewer than 28 pieces of legislation, and as such we must be one of the more productive joint committees in Parliament. For that reason I also want to thank Advocates Rudman and Nel most sincerely for the contributions they made to cause the business of this committee to function so smoothly.

Something else which strikes one in the annual report is that unlike past annual reports it does not only refer to the historic activities of the department. It also places emphasis on on-going, present and expected activities. This is to be welcomed, because it gives a more comprehensive and dynamic picture of the activities of the department.

Another matter which definitely draws attention is the major role which the department plays in respect of liaison with the TBVC states, the self-governing states and Swaziland. Apart from liaison in respect of legal professions which they support, there is also legal reform which is co-ordinated, but the biggest role they play is to provide these states with manpower and legal training. The hon member for Bloemfontein North will refer specifically to the staff aspect.

With regard to training I was particularly struck by the actions of the Attorney-General of Johannesburg and the Attorney-General of Natal, who are giving training to less experienced prosecutors. This must be encouraged, because it is an extremely efficient and practically orientated form of in-service training which is also economical because it takes place on the spot.

Another aspect which must be mentioned again, and with extreme gratitude, is the increase in productivity in the department. Proof of this is found in the fact that during the past year criminal cases increased by 5,5%, although the establishment did not increase. In the Masters’ Offices 46% more accounts were received in the year under review, whereas in this regard the establishment did not increase significantly either.

One member of the legal family one still misses in the annual report is the Deeds Office. The law of things remains a very important part of our legal system and I want to express the hope that this arm of our law will soon be incorporated in this department again. I believe that the staff of the Deeds Office would also like to return to this department.

Last year we took cognisance with great appreciation of the initiative of the General Council of the Bar to convene a big legal conference. Many matters were addressed, including high legal costs. I also feel that this Council must take cognisance of the contribution of the Bar in this connection. They act as pro Deo advocates for very low fees, they work for reduced fees in legal aid cases and free of charge at the request of the court. If one looks at the annual report there were almost 2 800 judges’ certificate cases and a large number of these were defended free of charge by advocates.

The one matter I have no doubt about is that the Bar will have to re-assess and rearrange its structure. I am disappointed that there are no signs of this yet. A few years ago the Smuts report made a few recommendations which could not be implemented owing to the unstructured nature of this profession. As far as I know the advocate’s profession is the only profession in the country for which there are two admission qualifications, as well as two codes of ethics which apply to it.

As regards qualifications, one can only practise as an advocate with an LL B, or if one joins a Bar, one must have an LL B, serve one’s articles and also write an examination. Only in the second case, when one is a member of a Bar, does one fall under its codes of ethics. In the other case, the advocate does not fall under that code of ethics. I submit that this is an unacceptable state of affairs. The Bar will have to put its house in order. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he does not want to discuss this with the Bar.

There should be only one qualification for admission, namely the academic qualification plus articles and an examination, as well as a possible period of practical experience with a recognised Bar. In addition there should only be one control body, and this should be the Bar Council or, if they do not want to do this, it should be a statutory body. However, if the people comply with this, they should be given reasonable freedom to practise in other places in our country too.

Our country is vast. We are not like England which manages with a few Bars. We have a tremendous manpower problem. For the sake of the profession I believe that this reregulating must take place.

†Two matters have dominated the judicial arena in the past few months. They have been the Law Commission’s report on human rights and the debate on corruption. The very important report of the Law Commission will be dealt with by the hon members for Roodeplaat and Sundays River. I wish to refer to the corruption allegations which I would submit are very pertinent to this debate, because they are basically an accusation that the State and the Government is unable to deal with criminal activity in its midst.

In the past few months there has been an unprecedented clamour about corruption. Time and again allegations were made that the Government was unable to deal with corruption and that it was not serious about its commitment to clean administration. The opposition parties thrived on the wildest allegations and scandalmongering. The last two of four reports dealing with this matter were tabled here a few weeks ago.

Since then there has been a marked silence from the opposition parties here and in the Press in dealing with the specific findings of the reports and the Government’s actions in dealing with the alleged corruption. There may have been one or two smear references, as we have seen here this morning, but there has been no attempt do deal with the findings or the Government’s actions on their merits. [Interjections.]

I would submit that this is very strange, because now we have all the facts on the table. Now is the time to deal in detail with these matters—here in Parliament—and yet this is not done. [Interjections.]

There can be only one inference from this, and that is that there is no truth whatsoever in the allegation that the Government is either corrupt or unable to deal with corruption. [Interjections.] The lack of criticism on the merits at this stage is proof that the Government and the hon the State President are sincerely committed to clean administration and the eradication of corruption; not only are they committed, but they have also done everything in their power to expose and deal with corruption. [Interjections.]

*What are the facts? As regards the Harms Commission, it has been found that no Minister or government official was guilty of corruption. The behaviour of the Reserve Bank, the Registrar of Banks and the Receiver of Revenue was criticised. It was found that there was negligence, and an investigation was ordered.

However, what must be said is that the behaviour of the Reserve Bank and the Registrar of Banks was disappointingly ineffective. Why did they have to wait until the hon the Minister of Justice had reacted to press reports before taking effective action?

As regards the report of the Advocate-General, it was found that the State had not been prejudiced; on the contrary, it had probably benefited, because the relevant building was leased for R8 per square metre and not R9,50 per square metre, which was Sanlam’s offer.

Nor was there any proof of corruption as regards the former Minister of Manpower and of Public Works and Land Affairs, Mr Du Plessis. Certain improper actions were identified, but the State was not prejudiced. For example, no diamond concessions were issued to the relevant company.

Recommendations were also made that the Guidelines for Ministers should be improved and a code of ethics should be drafted, as well as that there were shortcomings in the Commissions Act and the Banks Act. This was indicated and is receiving attention.

Now that the four reports have been submitted and the evidence is on the table, the bona fides of the Government must be tested. [Interjections.] The test is whether the Government recoiled from exposing this alleged corruption with all the instruments at its disposal. It could have done so. It could have done so by preventing investigations from being instituted or the findings from being made known, or criminal prosecutions from ensuing.

Precisely the opposite happened. [Interjections.] The Vermaas case is an example of this. In spite of the fact that Mr Vermaas has friends in high places, the hon the Minister of Justice initiated the investigation personally. In the other case the Advocate-General—an office created by this Government—took the initiative. The investigations were carried out as soon as possible. The Harms report was produced within approximately four months and the Advocate-General’s report within approximately six months. The relevant cases have already been referred to the Attorney-General for criminal proceedings to be instituted, and the Government has already reacted to several recommendations.

Not one of the relevant members of the NP is still in Parliament. These investigations were undertaken, the steps were taken and the information was published, with speed and urgency and, what is more, on the eve of an election. Is this the behaviour of a Government which wants to conceal something, or of an honest Government which does not hesitate to take action against alleged improprieties? [Interjections.] Of course this is the case.

The NP Press—that Press which is loyal to this Government—also played a big role in bringing this case out into the open and having it investigated. They must be thanked for this. Yet again, is this the behaviour or the actions of a party or its press which wants to cover something up? [Interjections.] Anything but!

After all this—if the facts on the table must be assessed—one thing is clear, namely that the hon the State President and this Government have kept their promise with regard to clean administration, as regards these case too. The Government must get credit for that.

If there are still people who doubt the bona fides of the Government after these reports, they must speak now while the evidence is on the table. They must indicate where the Government did not do its duty of bringing these cases out into the open. If they do not do so now and make the wildest allegations later on, everyone must know that this is only being done with a view to petty political gain and is without any merit.

Mr Chairman, we in South Africa are at a stage where racialism will have to go and should be a thing of the past. I am grateful for our Law Commission. It is a highly respected body and it is doing excellent work. This afternoon I would like to address the aspect of a bill of rights for our country.

There is a growing feeling that such a Bill is necessary for our country. It is a good idea to put the basic freedom rights of people in a new constitution for our country so that people will feel that South Africa is an upholder of freedom and democracy.

Presently, however, it is not a true democracy. South Africa is not a true democracy because the majority of South Africans are not represented in this Parliament. Basic human rights are being denied to the masses of our country.

I am not saying that a bill of rights will be a magic formula to solve our problems. However, it would be a good start because apartheid has taken away the rights of the Black individuals. These rights must be restored in a new constitution.

A bill of rights is only the top of a pyramid but it cannot be put there if the base of the pyramid is still rotten. [Interjections.] I am saying that I got here on a constitution that is not accepted by my party; this present Constitution is not even accepted by the NP, and therefore the hon the Minister is also talking about a new constitution. Hon members must be careful when they talk of how we got here. The present Constitution is not acceptable to the masses of South Africa and is no longer acceptable to the NP. [Interjections.] It is because this Constitution is no longer acceptable to the NP that they are asking for another constitition.

Order! I think the hon member for Dysselsdorp is shouting far too loudly in this Chamber. This is the last time he will be allowed to do so.

Mr Chairman, you must forgive him. He is a little hard of hearing and that is why he speaks loudly.

Order! I have already forgiven him. I will not do so next time.

Mr Chairman, that is where the problem lies in South Africa. The present Constitution is based on apartheid. The hon member says that it is not based on apartheid. It is based on apartheid because it is based on the colour of a person’s skin. This apartheid base will have to be removed as a priority or otherwise the Government will lose the nonviolent group in the South African Parliament. Thus, talk of a bill of rights when the masses do not have freedom is futile.

A bill of rights must be seen as a mark of victory for the freedom of the masses. It must be respected by most of the people. For the implementation of Project 58 of the Law Commission the Government would have to release Mandela and others so that the Government could initiate the process and invite a broad spectrum of political groups to make their contribution to a new constitution which has embodied in it a bill of rights. A National Convention is imperative for South Africa. A new bill of rights would mean nothing and would die a quick death if the Government itself were to propose one for South Africa. Hon members should think just what a bill of rights could do for South Africa—and not only for South Africa, but also for Africa, where 98% of its citizens do not have individual rights. We should become the leaders of freedom in Africa. This is where I say the NP could help and take a lead, because I do not believe that the Afrikaner group wants to keep rights away from individuals. This is why the Afrikaner group is saying: Let us look at a new South Africa … [Interjections.] Now we are saying to those hon members …

Order! There seems to be a conversation between the hon member for Addo and another hon member whom I cannot see clearly. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that hon members who wish to conduct a conversation can do so outside where they will not disrupt an hon member’s speech. I wish to tell hon members that we cannot continue in this way and I shall be obliged to request hon members who act in this fashion to leave the Chamber. I am not prepared to allow random conversations—if I may put it like that—to take place here. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, a bill of rights is important for South Africa because certain Whites in this country feel that they are superior because they are White. Some Whites cannot imagine themselves having the same rights as their so-called subjects, the Blacks. Respect for human rights is not only the individual’s responsibility, but also the responsibility of the Government. Human rights will have to be recognised, respected, protected and promoted for the sake of a new South Africa and for its survival. [Interjections.] If we want life, happiness, success and prosperity in South Africa, we should work for a new constitution which has embodied in it a bill of rights. A new constitution should ensure limitations on the Government and the State President so that the human rights of our country and its people are not raped.

I would like to mention another point or two. Other hon members might look at it, but I would like the hon the Minister to request the Law Commission to take another look at capital punishment in South Africa. It should also look at the national symbols of South Africa, namely its flag and national anthem. I believe that these things will be important in a new South Africa because I would like to be identified with a flag and I would like to identify myself with a national anthem which I feel is part of South Africa as a whole.

I would like to address one aspect which has caused an uproar in the House of Assembly, namely Mr Justice Jan Strydom. Information has it that this gentleman has six criminal records … [Interjections.]

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon member to discuss a judge in this Chamber without a special debate having been requested for that purpose. The hon member must go on to another point.

Mr Chairman, I will go on to another point, but I just want to say that it is important—and I am not naming any judge’s name right now—that the judges in our country have the respect of all the citizens of this country.

Therefore any judge, whoever he may be, should never be found guilty and be sentenced to six months’ hard labour for stealing a motorcar. Any judge, whoever that judge may be, must not be found guilty of breaking the emergency regulations and be put in prison for having an unlicensed firearm. Any judge, whoever that judge may be, must not have the right to sentence a White farmer, whoever that farmer may be, to a suspended sentence for murdering a Black farm worker.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member should obey your ruling.

Order! It has become very evident to whom the hon member is referring and he is circumventing my decision. If he wants to continue in that vein I will have to ask him to resume his seat. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, in the minute I have left before I take my seat I want to address the question of capital punishment.

I heard what the hon members said here earlier. One must realise, however, that we do not live in a fully democratic society in South Africa. The South African courts command the highest respect worldwide. Even the most radical of radical parties respects our courts. However, we need to look at the problem. While we are in the interim phase of looking at a new constitution we need to look at the legislation dealing with capital punishment. We have to do this because people, the so-called Black majority, feel they are put on trial by a court in terms of an Act into which they had no input. I want the hon the Minister to look into that.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to associate my party with the comments which have been made relating to the changes in the department, and I want to wish the officials concerned success and happiness in their future activities.

At this stage I would also like to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, who is the chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, for his kind comments regarding the fact that I am now the new spokesman on justice for the DP. I am grateful to him for those comments.

There are two main issues I want to deal with this afternoon. The first has been dealt with by the previous speaker to some extent. It is the Law Commission’s report and recommendation in respect of a bill of rights and I want to welcome this recommendation and commend it to all concerned.

I have noted the warning given by the hon the Minister recently at a public function that the recommendations of the Law Commission on this issue should not be politicised by political parties. While I agree with him that the concept of the protection of individual rights is a noble one which should be considered objectively on a high level, I must point out that it is not a matter which can be isolated from political discussion and debate.

That is something different.

The hon the Minister says it is something different. I am glad he concedes that. There are four reasons why I think it cannot be isolated from political discussion and political debate.

Firstly, it is in itself not a new concept. We in this party and its predecessors have advocated a bill of rights for South Africa for thirty years and more. It has been and is a cornerstone of our constitutional policy and so we do deal with it from political platforms and will continue to do so.

Many other organisations, conferences and in-dabas have also advocated bills of rights through the years, right up to the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba two years ago.

Internationally it is a widely accepted concept as an essential part of many constitutions of many countries. We know the USA has had a bill of rights for centuries, and most newer Western democracies have followed suit. Therefore it is clearly not a new concept and there are almost “standard models” of bills of rights available for study, research and adoption. The recommendations of the Law Commission are not much different from these models but they are nonetheless very welcome.

The second reason why one cannot isolate a bill of rights from political discussion is that these recommendations come from a law commission operating under a government which has been in power for over forty years and which during that period has made inroad upon inroad year after year upon the rights of individuals in this country to the extent that it has made us a pariah amongst the nations of the world. It has denied individuals their freedom of speech, it has denied them freedom of movement, it has denied them freedom of association, it has denied individuals freedom of access to the courts, and the principles of habeas corpus have been placed on a backburner or abandoned so often—as we see if we look at the history of South Africa over the past forty years.

All this has been done within the framework of a constitution which has given the individual no protection whatsoever against the power of the State and the zealots who have comprised its racist Government over the past four decades.

And so we must not be surprised if there is more than usual interest when the commission recommends the concept of a Bill of Human Rights to such a government with such a dark record in regard to matters affecting human rights.

The third reason why a bill of rights cannot be excluded from political discussion and debate is that this Government has through the years poured scorn on the notion of a bill of rights and its effectiveness in preserving and protecting the rights of individuals. Year after year in the sixties, the seventies and the eighties in debates in Parliament Nat spokesmen have scorned Bills of Rights saying that they were mere pieces of paper which could be torn up by the ruling party at any time and which could therefore afford no real protection to individuals. That is part of the history of the situation as far as the governing party is concerned.

We will wait anxiously and hopefully to see whether the Nat leopard can in fact change its spots on this vital issue for South Africa.

Do you agree with the report?

Yes, it is a standard bill of rights and not only do we welcome it but we also agree with it.

A fourth reason why these recommendations must be of more than usual interest and must attract political comment is that it is very difficult, of course, to see how a bill of rights can be reconciled with traditional and basic Nat policies which so often are themselves a denial of these very rights. Certainly a bill of rights in the classical sense is a mechanism which is introduced to protect individual rights per se and not group rights except where their transgression constitutes a transgression of individual rights.

One wonders, for example, how the Government will reconcile the operation of the Group Areas Act with the operation of a bill of rights. Every time an individual is evicted from an area or premises or denied access to an area or premises because of the colour of his skin it will be a denial of individual human rights.

One wonders also how they will administer the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. Here too, every time an individual is denied access to a public park or a park bench because of the colour of his skin it will be a denial of basic human rights.

And so one can go on citing the effect of various racial measures which the Nats have placed on the Statute Book as those effects are seen against the protection of individual human rights. I believe there will have to be drastic changes in Government policy and Government thinking before the spirit of the operation of a classical bill of rights can be felt in South Africa and can be made effective in reality.

Certainly, so long as individuals are denied the right to voluntary association and are forced by legislation into groups and thereafter to suffer discrimination as between one group and another, one will have a situation which is irreconcilable with the real operation of a bill of rights within such a society.

And so while we welcome wholeheartedly the concept of a bill of individual human rights and while we believe it essential in our society, it must be pointed out that such a step will have to be preceded by fundamental changes in Government attitudes and Government thinking reflected by the abandonment of laws and concepts which have done so much to destroy individual rights in South Africa over the past forty years.

So I trust that the hon the Minister will see that while the concept of a bill of rights is to be welcomed, it cannot be discussed and considered without reference to the society in which it is going to operate, and this must inevitably mean that there will be political debate as to its merits and the consequences of its operation. We in the DP hope that changes will be brought about in the South African society which can make a bill of human rights a powerful mechanism in bringing to the individual the protection which is so necessary in a modern society.

The second issue I want to deal with is the question of capital punishment and the operation of the death penalty in this country. I know that the question of capital punishment has been the subject of intensive discussion and debate in many countries around the world over a number of years. I realise that there are strong views for and against the operation of the death penalty and its efficacy in operating not only as a punishment for capital crimes but also as a deterrent in respect of violent crimes being committed in the future by others.

I am aware that in South Africa capital punishment has been part of our legal system throughout our history. I believe, however, that apart from the moral principles involved, vitally important as they are, the circumstances in this country now and in the immediate future are such that the whole vexed question should be reviewed. It is time a judicial commission was appointed to look into the use of capital punishment in South Africa, and I would urge the hon the Minister to give consideration to the appointment of such a commission without delay.

It has been reported that in this country more than 1 000 people have been executed since 1980. This is a staggering figure in any circumstances. More than 1 000 people in this country have been executed since 1980! The annual average of executions in South Africa has risen sharply from 21 per annum during the period 1910 to 1947 to a situation where in 1987 it reached an all-time high of 164. As I have said, 1 000 executions have taken place since 1980. I want to submit that at a time when we are at pains to show our own community and the international community at large that we are intent upon upholding civilised standards in South Africa, the high incidence of executions is actually giving credence to the belief that we are in fact a very primitive society meting out primitive justice in our community. It serves no other purpose.

I know it is claimed by those who support capital punishment that we live in a violent society, and that those who commit crimes of violence have got to be violently punished. They have got to pay the extreme penalty in order to deter others from committing similar crimes of violence. This argument is frequently used. I want to submit that this argument is not in accordance with the facts. Evidence elsewhere has shown that in Western Europe and Canada, where capital punishment has been abolished, and the United States of America where it is restricted, there has been no significant increase in violent crimes as a result. No one in his right mind can condone violence of any kind, whether it is social or political violence. Of course it has to be punished. However, the incidence of violent crime in South Africa cannot be used to justify capital punishment as a deterrent.

Why do we have the high crime rate in this country? Is it just an abnormally high violence rate in an otherwise normal society? We know it is not so. That is not the answer. The real truth is that the abnormally high violence rate in South Africa indicates the prevalence of conditions in the country that cannot be cured by capital punishment. It is far too simplistic a view to think that it can be. The death penalty can never be considered to be the ultimate deterrent in South Africa because the violence it seeks to curb is, whether we like it or not, often the result of social conditions in this country. It is often the result of poverty, deprivation, frustration and feelings of oppression which are endemic in this abnormal society.

I believe that there is a very powerful case indeed to be made for the appointment of a judicial commission to review the whole situation and the whole operation of the death penalty in South Africa. I would urge the hon the Minister in this debate to respond to my appeal and appoint that commission without delay.

I think these matters are of vital concern to South Africa, and I shall look forward to the hon the Minister’s reply with interest.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations addressed to the new Director-General, Mr Noeth, as well as to other persons mentioned by the hon the Minister. I also want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the hon the Minister and the Director-General for creating a regional court at Vryburg in my constituency within the area of the Northern Cape regional division.

As a member of the joint committee I want to express my thanks to the chairman for the effective way in which he arranges the committee’s business, and that he was the one who was instrumental in ensuring that politics was not dragged into the business of this joint committee.

The previous speaker, the hon member for Berea, as well as the hon member for Bonte-heuwel, referred to the death penalty and appealed for it to be abolished. I want to say, in the first place, that as regards reform and the present, constitutional set-up in this country, the NP has committed itself to reform in all spheres. Reform is a process which will be continued. However, we cannot want to change the legal system simply because we are in the process of changing the present constitutional dispensation satisfactorily for all the population groups. Nor can we compare executions in 1910 with those in 1987, as the hon member for Berea sought to do. We cannot do so without also considering the population structure in 1910 and that in 1987.

It is also of no avail for the hon member for Berea to tell us that the death penalty has been abolished in certain countries, if he cannot explain to us why there is such a clamour in Britain for the reintroduction of the death penalty.

I do not think the death penalty should be politicised. I think it is a pity that this aspect has been broached today. This is a sensitive matter which must be approached with responsibility and realism. It cannot be handled in an emotional way. There have been appeals for its abolition, but there have also been appeals for the retention of the death penalty, and I want to make so bold as to say that the majority are in favour of it. I want to associate myself fully with the sentiment that the death penalty should be retained.

I should like to refer to a survey made by Mark-en Meningsopname which was published in Rapport, 11 December 1988. In this survey it was found that only 5,8% of the specific target group approached was in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, 73,8% was in favour of its being retained in its present form, and 19,6% was in favour of the death penalty only being imposed in special circumstances.

When serious cases of rape and murder have been committed, one finds, particularly when these cases have been reported in the media, that various people and organisations spontaneously appeal for the retention of the death penalty. People who appeal for the abolition of the death penalty are too inclined to see the condemned person in isolation without considering the nature and the circumstances of the crime.

However, there is well-meaning criticism and proposals in this connection, and I want to refer to a few cases. Hon members will recall that the former Chief Justice, Mr Justice Rabie, advocated a discretion in respect of the imposition of the death penalty after an accused had been convicted of murder. Hon members will also recall that Judge Van den Heever made an appeal as long ago as 1981 for a discretion for the judge in imposing the death penalty after an accused has been found guilty of murder. She asked whether the legislature could not trust the courts to exercise a discretion in this case in the same way that the courts are trusted by the legislature to exercise a discretion when passing sentence in other cases.

I am referring to these proposals and schools of thought merely to indicate that views can be exchanged on this matter in a positive way. There is also another school of thought, namely that there must be an automatic right of appeal to the Appeal Court when the death penalty is imposed.

However, I want to ask the hon the Minister that when he adopts a standpoint on this matter he should adopt a standpoint against the abolition of the death penalty and that he should rather consider adjusting it. The demands of the community in principle for its retention may not be ignored.

I want to refer to another matter, namely the handling of the child witness. It has always been the standpoint of the courts that they should protect the child witness during cross-examination. However, the fact remains that there are still certain problems which are not addressed by the courts, their rules or the statutory legislation, for example when a child appears in court and he must see the accused face to face again, this can result in his recalling the previous experience and his appearance in court can be as traumatic for the child as the incident itself.

Court proceedings are of a formal nature and frequently the child is not put at ease. The credibility of a child’s evidence is linked to the application of the cautionary rule. In view of this I am grateful that the hon the Minister has instructed the South African + Law Commission to investigate the giving of evidence by children in which allegations of indecent acts are at issue and that, in particular, consideration should be given to the following possible protective measures and procedures.

Firstly, a child who gives evidence at a hearing must be assisted by a representative. Secondly, the identification of a suspect by a child must not take place in open court, but from behind a one-way mirror. Thirdly, the evidence of a child must be heard in an informal atmosphere which includes the hearing of such evidence in a room other than a court of law and which also includes the possibility of hearing the evidence of the child while the child is screened by a one-way mirror or in the absence of the accused.

Fourthly, pre-trial questioning of the child must be undertaken by a psychiatrist appointed by the court who is entitled to convey his opinion on the child’s credibility to the court, and that such questioning must take place in consultation with the accused, the prosecution and the presiding officer. Fifthly, video recordings of interviews between the child and a social worker must be allowed in court during the examination stage of the case and must be made available to the accused prior to the hearing.

Lastly, I want to refer to certain factors in the present law of criminal procedure which leave room for abuse. The fact is that cases which are delayed, are mainly delayed owing to the following factors.

In the first place there is the calling of unnecessary witnesses in criminal cases. Frequently evidence is given in full and it then becomes apparent that what was actually presented by the witness or witnesses, was common cause between the parties. There is also a lengthy cross-examination of witnesses, and all too often when the questioner is asked about his cross-examination he replies that he is testing the credibility of the witness or that it will soon become apparent what the purpose of his cross-examination is. Then there is also the taking of all possible points in limine, which is not necessarily in the interests of the defence, but is rather aimed at discrediting the administration of justice as such.

There is also another factor, and this concerns the unnecessary attacks and arguments in connection with charge sheets, jurisdiction and other matters. Frequently such a case literally drags on for months before it begins to be heard on its own merits. The basis of the defence is not revealed during plea proceedings and matters in dispute are therefore not identified beforehand. When the ownership of stolen livestock is not at issue, for example, it is unnecessary for the owner of the livestock to travel hundreds of kilometres in some cases to give evidence, and then not be asked any questions during cross-examination. That element could have been admitted, as could medical evidence in cases of culpable homicide. The question arises why 10 witnesses must travel long distances to give evidence when only one witness is sufficient to settle the actual dispute between the parties.

Publicity on court cases is allowed before a party has been afforded an opportunity to reply to allegations made against him. Cases are frequently heard in which unfounded allegations or allegations which have not yet been tested in a court of law receive such publicity, and in which that party then suffers untold damage. What is more, appeals against findings or orders of lower courts are frequently noted merely in order to suspend the relevant sentence or order pending the disposal of the appeal.

If a court interferes in criminal proceedings in a justifiable attempt to speed up the course of the hearing, that court is accused of being impatient or of entering the arena. In view of this the question arises, as has rightly been remarked, whether cross-examination is not being elevated into a sacred cow, whether the courts should not be able to intervene under certain circumstances and whether the questioner cannot be requested to explain the relevance of his question even if this reveals the goal he wants to achieve, even if he must give the explanation in the absence of the witness.

The point I want to make is whether it should not be possible for the trial judge to be able to take action in good time and immediately to bring a lengthy and unnecessary cross-examination to a head. I think a very important issue in criminal cases is that there should be pre-trial discussions so that this can help to identify points at issue and the facts which are common cause. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to give attention to this problem.

A similar problem also arises in civil cases, particularly in the magistrate’s court. What is or could be common cause, is placed at issue, simply to see whether the party cannot perhaps benefit from this. In the case of motor vehicle accidents expert witnesses must come to court at great expense to give evidence, and then it becomes apparent that their evidence is not disputed. Pre-trial discussions to identify points at issue in the presence of the presiding officer should be applied in all cases to shorten hearings.

In conclusion I want to remark that the magistrates in civil courts are able, with the thorough training they at present receive, to handle increased jurisdiction successfully and that on this basis they can eventually keep cases from the Supreme Court, by trying them themselves. I see on page 23 of the annual report that two courses for the training of magistrates are being presented so that they can hear civil cases. I think it would be a good thing if this training could be extended so that more magistrates would have the opportunity to undertake the hearing of civil cases.

As regards the law of civil procedure I should also like to know from the hon the Minister whether there has been any progress or developments since the discussion at Jan Smuts Airport.

Mr Chairman, I want to pledge my strongest support to the aspect covered by the hon member for Vryburg concerning the protection of child witnesses, and express the hope that the South African Law Commission, to which this matter has been referred for investigation, report on it as soon as possible. I believe that in the times we are living in, where the whole phenomenon of child molestation has been exposed, it is extremely important for child witnesses to be granted the utmost protection.

I should also like to associate myself with the congratulations expressed to the officials who have been promoted, and express the hope that they will have a very beneficial term of office.

†The spirit of my contribution is in line with the opening paragraph of the report of the department, namely:

It could not be more true. It is therefore very welcome that the Law Commission looks at adaptations from time to time in order to cater for such a rapidly changing society as ours. The most recent reports of the Law Commission bear testimony thereto.

I would now like to turn to a matter which I believe is responsible for the alienation of communities and peoples and here I wish to refer to prosecutions in terms of the Group Areas Act of 1966.

I realize that the group areas branch of the South African Police do the investigations and, having done the investigations, they present these to the prosecutors in the various centres. This is where the Department of Justice comes in. There was a lull as far as prosecutions were concerned for a considerable period. However, it would seem now that the storms have arrived. In this respect I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister to realise that people of colour have not moved into White areas because there is a feeling within them to challenge the law. There are a number of factors which lead to the tendency of people to move into White areas.

Firstly, statistics will prove that there is an over-supply of housing for White people whilst there is a tremendous shortage of housing for communities of colour. In the past decade there has been a tendency for Whites to move out to newer suburbs from inner cores of cities and towns, and many foreigners have returned to their countries of origin, whilst we have also experienced a reasonable amount of emigration. The vacuum which was thus created was filled by people of colour who were desperately yearning for accommodation. In short, it was also a question of supply and demand and we maintain that market forces dictate this sort of behaviour which has nothing to do with colour, caste or creed.

*Recently there have been numerous prosecutions, especially in our metropolises. In this respect I want to address a serious, but courteous request to the department to handle this matter with the greatest circumspection and consideration. The perception among the general public is that the Act is unfair and that seeking a roof over a family’s head should not be regarded as a misdemeanour.

Hon members are aware of the emotions usually roused by this Act. In Johannesburg in particular there are numerous prosecutions at present. Since the Free Settlement Board is going to undertake a number of investigations in terms of the Act agreed to by the President’s Council last year, I want to request that the prosecutions be stopped and the problem rather be seriously addressed in order to find a lasting solution which will make everyone happy.

Immediately.

Immediately, yes. As a member of the Cabinet, the hon the Minister can take part in such solutions.

Prosecutions are going to lead to alienation and will make a farce of the Government’s so-called reform initiatives. Let us all become part of a process of uniting everyone in a common South Africanism, and let this unfetter a spirit of fairness. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to another matter that is also assuming serious proportions. That is the increase in drug traffic and, of course, child molestation. In my home town, where there is a drastic shortage of accommodation, which gives rise to all kinds of social problems, a survey was recently made among our school-going young people by one of Sanca’s social workers. The results were alarming.

In a random check of 116 Std 6 pupils, 30 used some or other form of liquor or drugs or sniffed glue. Out of 142 Std 7 pupils, 49 had had the same experience, and out of 125 Std 8 pupils, 43 had had this experience. When one comes to Std 9 pupils, the picture is shocking. Out of 165 pupils, no fewer than 92 had had experiences of this kind. What we have to contend with here is a whole generation of young people who could be drug addicts.

Although it is important to launch preventive campaigns, an aspect which may reside with other departments, it is equally important that no mercy be shown to drug pedlars who are caught. In my opinion the present punishments upon conviction do not have the necessary effect. They are not harsh enough. Fines imposed on such people are like pocket money to many of them. A R10 000 fine is like an evening in a restaurant to a drug smuggler. It means nothing to him.

Perhaps we should impose the death sentence.

In certain respects I do not think the death sentence is necessary. Nevertheless those people are slowly murdering children. If one shoots someone, that person has little suffering. Nevertheless, I believe that one could consider the death sentence as a punishment for such smugglers, given the kind of suffering they cause these young people. The hon the Minister must consider possibly increasing punishments. Perhaps long-term imprisonment is a possible solution. A fine is not going to serve any purpose whatsoever, because these people make thousands and thousands of rands, and to pay a fine of a few thousand rands is nothing to them.

I should also like to refer to the commission which the hon member for Berea appealed for. Perhaps a commission could also be appointed to consider this serious matter. These smugglers are prepared to destroy our young people for the sake of financial gain. It is sad to see the young addicts, especially when they are under the influence of drugs. It is worse than murder, because this is a question of painful suffering. I want to thank those who work with such addicts for their dedicated work.

There is an organisation of this kind in my home town under the leadership of a Dr M E Ballah, who spends more time on these people than on his own practice. He and his people are to be complimented. They have a difficult task, and I believe that there are dedicated citizens in other parts of the country who are also waging this difficult struggle. For that reason I appeal for such smugglers to be given longer terms of imprisonment.

The same thing applies to child molesters. So far this phenomenon has emerged in the higher income groups, and in some cases has involved even well-known and prominent personalities. I suggest that a fine will not have the necessary effect in this case either. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to make a few comments on what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said. He said inter alia that the Government could have prevented a whole lot of things from happening with reference to corrupt practices.

If I understood and heard him correctly, he also said that the Government could have prevented criminal prosecution from taking place. If he said that, I should like to ask the hon the Minister how it is possible for the Government to have prevented criminal prosecutions from taking place or being instituted in this connection.

In the second place the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to the Advocate-General’s report with reference to former Minister Pietie du Plessis. I want to make a few short comments about that. In the first place there is one thing we can be sure of in the midst of a great deal of uncertainty, and that is—I want to assure the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North of this—that we have not heard the last word on this matter.

In the last place I should like to refer to the press release issued by the hon the Minister of Justice with reference to the Advocate-General’s finding on former Minister Pietie du Plessis. I say the following with respect, because I respect the hon the Minister of Justice. I must tell him, however, that the statement he issued does not correspond with the essential findings of the Advocate-General. In fact, the statement issued by the hon the Minister could even be construed as misleading.

I want to refer to only one example in this connection. I could refer to five examples and make them available to the hon the Minister. One of the findings made by the Advocate-General to which the hon the Minister does not refer at all in his press release is the following one which I shall quote from paragraph 3.48 of the Advocate-General’s report. It reads:

That is the Advocate-General—

That is the lease of the Housing Building in Pretoria—

In the short time at my disposal I want to make a few comments about the South African Law Commission’s report with reference to human and group rights. Obviously this is such a comprehensive topic that all I can do is discuss a few cursory remarks. I adopted a more comprehensive standpoint when giving evidence before the South African Law Commission, at which stage I referred to certain of my own publications both here and abroad on human and group rights.

Secondly I should like to refer to a statement made by the commission on page 267, and I quote:

They were referring to the CP.

I should like to rectify the matter by saying that no official request was addressed to the leader-in-chief or the chief whip of the CP to state a point of view as was said by the commission in that particular passage. Factually this statement was incorrect.

Subsequently I should like to say that the standpoint adopted by the hon the Minister with reference to human rights at present is a complete reversal of the one he adopted in an article he wrote in the Tydskrif vir Regswetenskap of the University of the Orange Free State in 1984. He wrote that article under the heading: “Waarom nie ’n verklaring van menseregte nie?” I ask the hon the Minister—I need not refer him to his standpoint, because he knows the standpoint he held in that article—whether he now advocates the same standpoint as the one that is being adopted by the South African Law Commission.

Let me make a few comments on the South African Law Commission’s report. Despite the fact that it consists of almost 500 pages, I feel, after studying it in some depth, that it is a superficial report which consists of quotation after quotation, without any fundamental analysis of any of those quotations. Instead it looks as though the South African Law Commission, with all due respect, assumed a predetermined standpoint and then wrote around that standpoint. [Interjections.]

The commission gives attention to group rights in only two of its chapters, and without further ado it equates group rights with minority rights. Jurisprudentially group rights, or ethnic group rights, cannot simply be equated with minority rights.

I have specific proof for this. One of the internationally acknowledged exponents for ethnic group rights is Theodor Veiter, to whom reference is made in the South African Law Commission’s report only in a footnote, without any analysis or discussion, in connection with his well-known book, Nationalitätenkonflikt und Volksgruppenrecht, im 20. Jahrhundert, Munich, 1977.

As a result the human rights positions in Belgium and Switzerland are not analysed in any depth. The most important problems in the international literature on human rights are those with reference to the restrictions of human rights. [Interjections.] If hon members look at sections 1 up to and including 19 of the West German Constitution, they will find that every section contains a restriction with reference to human rights which is defined in three ways. I do not have the time to go into those three restrictions, but if hon members want to go and read them, they are welcome to do so. In fact, the German Constitution goes so far as to say the courts have no right to interfere in the use of electronic surveillance in the case of state security matters.

What is the crux of the commission’s recommendation on human and group rights? This can be found on page 391 of the report. The commission says very clearly that there is really no such thing as the protection of cultural, religious and language interests in a group context and that those rights—I want to emphasise this—cannot be protected in a bill of human rights, except by means of individual legal protection. This means that they cannot be protected as groups, but only by means of individual rights.

The commission then says something which is a very important message to the NP, viz that political minority rights cannot be protected in a bill of human rights, but only by means of the composition of the legislative or executive authority.

In my opinion that has important implications for the NP, because they are always telling the country and its people, and especially the CP, that minority rights can be protected. The South African Law Commission says clearly that minority rights, as far as cultural, religious and language rights are concerned, cannot be protected in group context, and can be protected only by means of individual rights.

When one looks at what the commission includes in its list of the individual rights a bill of human rights for South Africa should contain, one finds it has serious implications. This would mean that the Group Areas Act would be in conflict with such a bill of human rights and would have to be abolished. In terms of this South African Law Commission proposal, the Population Registration Act would have to be abolished. Even more important, separate schools in terms of the proposed clause 10 would be in conflict with a proposed bill of human rights and could therefore not exist. Hon members can take a look at clause 10 of the Law Commission’s recommendations. In fact, according to the South African Law Commission’s proposals, no group protection will be permissible if their proposed bill of human rights is accepted. They cannot sell the voters of South Africa either what the DP or the NP can sell them, as they are trying to do at present, by harnessing only the courts to accomplish those rights. We cannot politicise the courts in this way in terms of the commission’s proposals. I now want to quote what the hon the Minister said in that article he wrote: “Ons kan nie die howe op hierdie wyse verpolitiseer nie.”

This report proves that the NP’s protection of minorities in a unitary state is a complete myth. What the commission is proposing is nothing but a non-racial one man, one vote system, which is in fact the policy of the DP. We say that ethnic group rights can be protected only by means of partition, where every people can govern itself on the basis of the internationally acknowledged right of self-determination. [Interjections.] When each people governs itself, there will be a framework within which one can talk about human rights that can exist in a specific form.

I want to conclude and invite the hon the Minister to go and read the interesting judgement of the American court in the Tel Oren case.

Order! Unfortunately I am afraid the hon the Minister will have to go and read this judgement himself, because the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to speak about corruption, since I do not want to become involved in the political Boer War which is taking place here. Nor am I going to speak about partition. I would like to associate myself and my party with the congratulations conveyed to the administrative personnel, as well as to my friend Mr Pillay. I am glad to see that he has risen from the dead and is with us this afternoon.

Firstly I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on the development of the small claims courts since 1984. At present there are 57, scattered in 88 magisterial districts, of which there are currently 89 in sitting. One should be concerned by the fact that 80% of the people appearing in these criminal courts are not represented. On the one hand we are looking at the development on the civil side, but on the other hand we are not devoting enough attention to the criminal element. I think the hon the Minister should devote more attention to this in the coming year.

We have discussed the three-year degree course which certain people would be able to take in order to act as public defenders. The hon the Minister should definitely pay attention to that matter.

I would like to commit my party to the appeal for the death sentence to be abolished once and for all. We should look into that matter.

†We will have to support the inquiry so that the death sentence can be abolished. As an interim measure section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977, must be amended. If we change the word “shall” to “may” then we will give effect to the call made by ex-Chief Justice Rabie made on 28 April 1989 in the Pretoria News where he stated that many more people would escape the death sentence if it was within the discretion of the judges. This sentiment is also expressed by a former Director-General of the Department of Justice, Phillip Coetzer, SC, who also in an article in Business Day, 4 April 1988, pleaded for exactly the same thing. As an interim measure by simply changing the word “shall” to “may” in section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act we can achieve that discretionary power which will vest in the judiciary. We have full confidence in our judiciary and we would therefore like the hon the Minister to have a look at that immediately.

I now want to come to the question of detainees. If one is convicted and is serving time one has the right to have access to a library; one has the right to take part in basic training; and one has the right to study and to write examinations and to better oneself. However, what about the detainees who have spent up to three years inside? They do not have these basic rights of convicted prisoners. They have not been found guilty of any offence, yet they are treated worse than people who have been convicted of offences. What is the hon the Minister going to do about these rights?

*It may perhaps be the portfolio of the hon the Minister, but when those people pass through the prison doors it becomes the responsibility of the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister should not shrink from his responsibility now.

†I would like to come back to the slice of the cake which was promised to us when we supported the Sheriffs Bill. Does the hon the Minister remember? I think we spent about 18 months arguing over that Bill because we felt that we were protecting White interests only. If one looks throughout this country one finds that sheriffs and messengers of the court have predominantly White skins.

*So when are we getting our slice of that cake? The Cape Flats is a vast area, and more than a year ago we have been promised our share of the inheritance—if I may put it like that—of the economy, but up till now nothing has come of it. Another aspect I should like to touch on, concerns a problem which is bearing down heavily on our poorer people.

†When some of our subeconomic tenants buy their dwellings they cannot afford to pay exorbitant transfer costs because they are among the poorest of the poor. They cannot still afford to pay these legal fees which they have to pay because they are now judged as if they are fully-fledged citizens of the country. They belong to the poor sector of our community. In the Black community one finds that a simple deed is issued by the housing officials, which deed is recognised by everybody. That deed confers a real right upon that person. Why cannot we instruct the Deeds Office to investigate the possibility of adopting a similar system when it comes to the subeconomic townships of this country, whereby a deed can be issued by the housing office, which deed confers upon that person a real right to that property? It will be cost-effective, it can be done administratively and it can be respected by each and every person in the country.

*Today I should also like to address the hon the Minister on the abuse of the legal process by certain municipalities. I have in my possession a letter which I have received quite by chance today. A certain man was asked to pull over in the vicinity of Grahamstown and he received a ticket. Unfortunately, he did not pay the fine on the due day or before the time, but he sent his money to the authorities in Grahamstown. He sent them his fine of R150—he did not have it before the time, that is why he sent it in late. Those people actually returned the money to the man and now he will be arrested. Usually they do it on a Friday so that he has to spend the whole weekend in prison and has to appear in court on Monday. He now has to be escorted to Grahamstown. While he is sitting there in prison, the hon the Minister has to feed him as well. Why cannot this money be accepted and town councils all over the country be ordered to inform the court in such cases that the man has paid the fine? Then enquiries can be made from the local court nearest to where the man is living as to why he has not appeared in court. Why this waste of manpower? Why should we punish an innocent driver and turn him into a criminal? When he is locked up, he is thrown into a cell together with hardened criminals. This traumatic experience of that law-abiding man is also something against which we should now protect him. We should clamp down on municipalities that exploit these traffic offences to fill their coffers. We should not allow the Department of Justice to be abused in the process.

This year I will not be speaking about the old story of Latin again. Enough has been said about that and I hope that the hon the Minister, when he gives his reply, will tell us once and for all that Latin is no longer necessary when one wants to practice as an attorney—that it will only be necessary if one wants to become an advocate. Really, the hon the Minister should please abolish it in this Chamber today.

Mr Chairman, I gladly follow on the hon member for Border. I do not want to react to his specific requests and inquiries to the hon the Minister.

Before possibly presenting hon members with something more substantial, however, I want to confine myself, to something he said at the end of his speech. I am referring to the question of Latin. In contrast to that hon member, who wanted to know something about Latin in regard to lawyers, I should like to present hon members with a few ideas about Latin as a requirement for an LL B degree. The whole question is a fairly focal issue after various court rulings which, as hon members know, did not go into the merits of the case in determining whether Latin ought to be a requirement, but which actually highlighted a problem of interpretation. In other words, the question before the court was what the Act meant when it referred to a course in Latin at university level.

In the debate involving the desirability of Latin two arguments, which in my view do merit attention, were highlighted, even if only to point out that they were devoid of any fundamental grounds. Firstly there are the proponents of the abolition of Latin who use the argument that Black students should be accommodated because they find Latin difficult. Firstly I do not think that a Black student from New Brighton in Port Elizabeth would find Latin more difficult than a White Afrikaans-speaking student from Kirkwood in the Eastern Cape. In any event, on the same basis one would then argue that the law of negotiable instruments, which is a very difficult section of the law to master, should be abolished to accommodate unintelligent students. We cannot meddle with standards in this way.

Then there is the argument for the retention of Latin which states that we would be dropping standards if we were to water down or abolish Latin. As someone who has stood in front of a class for almost 20 years, lecturing LL B students, let me say that it is late in the day for our South African universities to have to assess their LL B standards on the basis of whether they should include or exclude a trifling first-year BA subject in their curriculum.

No, Mr Chairman, when one draws up an LL B curriculum, a choice of priorities is what it is all about. One has a limited period of time for contact with a student, and he has a limited amount of time available to devote to his work. As it is universities must make use of optional subjects in the LL B curriculum because there simply is no room for all the subjects one would like to include. My view is unequivocally that the time taken up by Latin I is not justified in terms of its usefulness as a subject. There are many other subjects that could be presented much more profitably in that time.

I want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to end the uncertainty and cut the Gordian knot. I respectfully suggest that Latin at matriculation level, or a beginners’ course in Latin, is the proper requirement that should be laid down.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

I will answer a question if I have time. I have another subject which I know the hon member would like me to deal with. I will come back to him if I have a minute left at the end.

*In my view it is a question of academic requirements. It is for the university to decide, within the ambit of its curriculum as a whole, whether it wants to give such historical emphasis to its tuition that it wants to include Latin I, II or III. It is therefore an academic question and not one that should be prescribed or answered from a legal point of view.

I now what to come to a matter that I want to put to hon members with the utmost seriousness. I want to exchange a few ideas with hon members about the role the law has to play in the reform process that lies ahead. Firstly it is probably true that constitutional reform is going to be embodied in and implemented by legislation. Apart from that, I want to tell hon members that the law—our whole legal system—is going to be one of the foundation-stones of the South Africa of the future. I should like to put it to hon members that just as the constitutional framework and the socio-economic and social positions of all our people in this country are going to be the building-blocks for the new South Africa, the legal system is likewise going to be such a building-block. I want to point to a few aspects.

It is essential for our legal system to have legitimacy in the eyes of all our people. No system can be a building-block if it does not have the confidence of society as a whole. Our law must be served and experienced as a system guaranteeing protection, as a mechanism for freedom and as a symbol and actual manifestation of justice. I want to state unequivocally today that the wonderful principles underlying our law, which crystallised into what is known as common law, will increasingly—by the day, in fact—have to be articulated in our legislation. We shall have to make a better job of ensuring that we maintain these basic principles in our legislation and in our quasi-judicial and administrative processes. We shall purposely have to strive towards developing our legal system in such a way that everyone in this country sees it and experiences it as a refuge, a safe harbour, for everyone.

We shall also have to give particular attention to the further development of the powers and independence of the Bench. In this regard I want to lodge a plea in regard to magistrates. I want to see the tangible administrative separation of the posts of magistrate and prosecutor. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the time has not come for us to have a council of justice or some other body which, inter alia, could deal with the appointment and promotion of magistrates.

Thirdly we shall have to give attention to the style of our legislation. Too easily and too frequently principles of fairness or the merits of the case are made subservient to formalism, and then we hear people saying that a case was won or lost on a so-called technical point. I want to lodge a plea for our legislation not to take the form of departmental manual or handbooks, but to contain the fundamental principles which then have to be implemented in practice, but under the auspices of our courts. This implies that the legislature will have exceptional confidence in our Bench.

Fourthly we must be careful when dealing with the administrative decisions and the testing rights of our courts. I want to state unequivocally that the ideal is to have the fairness and reason ableness of all administrative and quasi-judicial decisions tested by the courts.

There is a final point I want to raise about our legislation. I think the legislation should reflect a certain attitude, and I want to warn against so-called “overkill”. I should like to say that I believe that at all times our legislation should clearly reflect the principle of reasonableness ex facie the law itself.

I want to conclude by saying that the law is not patch work. It is not something one can carry around in one’s pocket to use when necessary. The law must reflect and articulate the endeavours and the living values of a society. What I have presented here today cannot become a reality in a society in which bombs are manufactured and atrocities are committed against human beings, for example burning people alive. No one who is being attacked by a knife can be expected to have recourse to the courts to obtain an interdict against his attacker. The law as such in South Africa is under attack. The attack must be warded off, and this frequently goes hand in hand with difficult and unpopular measures. We cannot permit the law as such to be destroyed. At the same time, in our eagerness to protect the law, we must not specifically allow ourselves to do violence to the legal system itself. This balance we must seek is perhaps one of the major challenges facing us on the road to reform in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton may now ask his question.

Mr Chairman, the hon member said that he asked the hon the Minister to abolish the Latin I course as a qualification for admission as advocates. What value does a matric qualification have to an advocate?

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Minister answered that question when he dealt with a question asked by the hon member for Sandton on 7 March 1989. At that stage the hon the Minister indicated that Latin, to a certain extent, is of importance because many of our legal rules are expressed as Latin maxims and certain standard ideas are expressed in Latin. Latin expressions are part of everyday court language. I think we cannot escape from the fact that the basis and origin of our legal system lies in Roman law, and in order to understand the origins of our law, surely one must have at least a basic idea of the language and of the cultural background of that time.

What about attorneys?

Mr Chairman, I shall be dealing with some of the things the hon member for Riviersonderend said. I agree entirely …

Sundays River!

Oh, an hon member told me … [Interjections.] I was given the wrong information by a member of the party to which that hon member belongs! [Interjections.] It does not matter where the hon member comes from; what is of importance is what he says. I agree with a great deal of what he said about the necessity for holding our legal system in high regard, and for it being respected by all sections of the community. However, what I have to say later will be dealing with that.

Mr Chairman, I honour your ruling that one may not deal with cases involving judges in Parliament, unless one does it via a substantive motion. I am at present still striving to frame a motion of censure for the House to debate which will be acceptable to Mr Speaker regarding the notorious case of the State v Vorster and Leonard, in which a sentence handed down by the judge was described by the Johannesburg Bar Council as so inappropriate as to be a gross perversion of justice. I will wait until I can discuss that on a substantive motion.

Meantime, while I grapple with Mr Speaker, another shocking judgement has been handed down, this time by a magistrate in the Regional Court at Klerksdorp; the case of the State v Louis Johannes Venter and Pieter Marthinus Fouche.

On 16 March 1988 Venter and Fouche, two White farmers, suspected a Black man, Medupe Steven Mononye, of having stolen cattle. It was two cows, to be exact. They kidnapped Mononye, tied him up hand and foot, and brutally assaulted him later with a sjambok. Mononye subsequently died, the cause of death being recorded as brain haemorrhage supposedly as a result of Mononye having hit his head during the struggle against the windscreen of the bakkie in which they were transporting him. They were not on their way to the police station, as they should have been under the Stock Theft Act, but to a plot where the cows allegedly were and later on to a farm, when he was assaulted.

Fouche and Venter pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with the intent to commit grievous bodily harm, after the charge of culpable homicide had been changed and the change accepted by the prosecutor. There are many questions that should be asked such as why the prosecutor agreed to this lesser charge, and why she also did not pursue the charge of kidnapping at all. The magistrate, Mr P J L Venter, sentenced both the accused to a R600 fine …

Disgraceful.

Absolutely…. each of them, and four months imprisonment plus a further 6 months imprisonment suspended for five years. [Interjections.]

What circumstances could possibly have lead the magistrate to impose such a grossly inappropriate sentence for such brutal assault, even given the fact, of course, that stock-theft is almost the most heinous crime on the South African Statute Book? What sort of effect will this gross perversion of justice have on the concept of the Black community of the impartiality of the judiciary? What encouragement will it give to other White bully-boys to take the law into their own hands? What further damage to the reputation abroad of the South African judicial system will this case have, coming as it does hard on the heels of the Strydom judgement in the case of the State v Vorster and Leonard’! There has been a public outcry about that case and I want to know what the hon the Minister is going to do about it.

The hon the Minister is considered, and I hand it to him, to be one of the best Ministers of Justice South Africa has had since this Government came to power. Not that that is such a great compliment! [Interjections.] Well, just in passing! He has, nevertheless, championed the cause of prison reform and there I give him full credit. He has introduced considerable improvement into our marriage laws, particularly as far as the status of women is concerned, for example, the Matrimonial Property Act. I give him credit for that too. He has indeed improved the marrriage laws for the entire community both Black and White. He has even appointed some good judges, and recently a very good Chief Justice.

What I want to know, and it follows on the speech of the hon member who has just sat down—I would not dare to mention his constituency because I have forgotten it already!—is whether the hon the Minister is prepared to allow the deterioration in our judicial system to go unchecked, as I say exemplified by the case that I have mentioned and which will certainly be expanded on if I ever get a chance at the substantive motion on Judge Strydom. Will he at least order an in-depth investigation into the conduct of both the prosecutor in the Venter and Fouche case, and the magistrate in the Mononye case, and if not, why not? Is he prepared to enquire why the Attorney-General of the Wit-watersrand ignored for four or five months a judge’s instruction that the methods of interrogation of the Brixton Murder and Robbery Squad be investigated, because he, the Attorney-General, said he thought the judge’s comments were rhetorical? Did anybody ever hear such a feeble excuse!

Will he find out why the Attorney-General of the Transvaal took it upon himself to justify to an overseas person the appalling judgement in the State v Vorster and Leonard case? Is that the duty of an Attorney-General? I have a copy of the letter to the person oversees to prove this.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity to agree with my colleague from Berea that a commission of enquiry into the death penalty is long overdue. I first asked for this in a private member’s motion way back in 1969. That was 20 years ago. I was then the only Prog in the House and of course I got no support from a single hon member in Parliament. Since then 1 839 people have been hanged in South Africa. We have the unenviable record of having hanged more people than the entire Western World put together, that is in those few countries which do retain the death penalty.

I believe that there are two factors which have been mentioned prior to this year’s debate by the hon member for Sandton, which are of special significance in the grizzly saga of death row. One is that the death sentence is mandatory for murder, unless extenuating circumstances are found, and that that should be done away with. The discretion should be left to the judges. We would have fewer people hanged in this country. The extenuating circumstances are only excepted in cases of accused under the age of 18 or women who are found guilty of murdering their newborn babies. I may add that this is a fact I only learned yesterday. Secondly, there is no automatic right of appeal against the death sentence and that too should be changed.

It is surely vitally necessary for us to have a commission of enquiry, which we have never really had in South Africa, into the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Therefore that is what we should do now, and then South Africa should consider joining the comity of nations which have abolished the death penalty.

Mr Chairman, before I join the debate I would like to convey a message to all hon members seated to the right of the Chair. In my mother tongue there is a dictum. I will give the interpretation afterwards. It goes as folows: “Hitaar koo hitter phalen”—it will be done unto you as you do to others. That erstwhile forefather of the NP, Gen Hertzog, was a firm believer in this dictum. He imparted that philosophy to many hon members of the NP. Hon members must remember that it will be done unto them as they do unto others.

Firstly, I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister of Justice on agreeing to meet a delegation from the KwaZulu Government to discuss the release of Mr Nelson Mandela. If ever a man had to pay whatever debt there is to society it is Mr Nelson Mandela. The hon the Minister knows from the practice in his own department that a life sentence never means literally for the rest of one’s life.

To the best of my knowledge— the hon the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—it never means more than 20 years. Mr Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964. It means that on that sentence he has served about 26 years now. The hon the State President has acknowledged the fact that he has served more than the traditional life sentence. For that reason alone he did not return him to jail but confined him to a house on prison property.

Whichever way one looks at the situation, however, effectively Mr Mandela is still confined to prison. Why does the Government not release him? That is a big question. It seems that the Government fear that if they release him subsequent events will compel them to arrest him and that such arrest might lead to an unstable situation developing in South Africa, namely riots, unrest and so on. I do not deny that that possibility does exist. However, I think that the probability will be that the release of Mr Mandela will on its own act as a stabilising factor in South Africa.

I remember what happened to the late Mr Sobukwe, the erstwhile leader and founder of the PAC. He was sentenced in 1960 to a term of 3 years’ imprisonment. It was his decision and that of the PAC to organise an anti-pass campaign that led to the tragedy of Sharpeville and the first proclamation of a state of emergency.

Just before completing his third year in jail the Government passed a special law allowing it to detain him in prison for further indefinite periods. Strictly speaking, he was not treated as an ordinary prisoner. He was held as a detainee for a few years on Robben Island.

In this instance, too, the Government feared the repercussions of Sobukwe’s release. Yet finally, when Sobukwe was released, nothing extraordinary happened.

Recently the Government released Zeph Motho-peng, the president of the ANC, and Govan Mbeki, who was sentenced with Mandela to life imprisonment in 1964. Mr Mbeki is not only a member of the ANC, but according to himself, also a member of the SACP. The Government also released Harry Gwala, who was also serving a life sentence. In each of these cases it was decided to release the prisoners on medical grounds. On their release the public peace was in each case hardly disturbed. Large welcoming meetings were held on behalf of Govan Mbeki, and when the Government felt—rightly or wrongly—that the situation might get out of hand, it took administrative measures to prevent such a thing happening. In other words, the Government has the capacity to maintain law and order should this become necessary.

I am of the opinion that the positive aspects far outweigh the negative aspects. The whole world will applaud such a decision when it adds the positive role South Africa has played in ending conflict in Namibia and Angola, and how South Africa is prepared to assist Mozambique. The whole world will look anew at the demand for sanctions against South Africa. The KwaZulu Government, under the leadership of Dr Man-gosutu Buthelezi, is to be complimented on the steps that have been taken on behalf of Mr Nelson Mandela. This House should also support the endeavours of the KwaZulu Government and Dr Buthulezi.

It is well known that Mr Mandela appreciates what is being done for him, as can be seen by the letter sent by him to the Chief Minister last month. I call upon the hon the Minister of Justice to release Mr Mandela. I repeat what I said earlier. This man has paid his debt to society and his release is justified.

Having said that, I wish to highlight certain problems parochial to the people of Chatsworth in Durban. The solution to these problems is within the purview of the hon the Minister of Justice. Chatsworth urgently needs a regional court. Presently cases are referred to Durban. This causes much inconvenience to all concerned. The accused, the witness and the attorneys have to travel up and down. In January this year 26 cases were referred to regional courts, 21 cases in February and 43 cases in March. I do not yet have the figure for April.

Chatsworth has a population of 450 000 people, and there is only one civil court. On this court’s roll there are between five and six cases daily. One day a week is set aside just to handle debtor enquiries and applications. Also in this respect an additional civil court has to be established.

The two criminal courts in Chatsworth are far too inadequate to handle the number of criminal cases, and the rolls of these courts are also overcrowded. Frequently attorneys and the accused have to wait for the entire day. Often at the end of the day the matters are remanded to another day.

The Chatsworth Legal Circle has started a much needed small claims court. The commissioners have been appointed, and a venue has been established, but the court is not functioning, all because the Department of Justice has not gazetted the authority establishing this court.

I would like the hon the Minister to tell us why it is being delayed and when his department will get round to these matters.

One more thing about Chatsworth is that a senior prosecutor there needs to be taught some manners. He must talk to people as human beings. He thinks he is lord and master and that he owns that court. He talks to people in a very rude and crude manner which I think is not befitting in this modern age.

What I would like to tell the hon the Minister is that the judiciary in South Africa are held in very high esteem. When we talk about a Bill of Rights we talk of the freedom of the judicial powers, but what is disturbing is that some judges seem to be biased. They are besmirching the dignity of the judiciary in this country. For instance, I read in the paper—I cannot recollect the judge’s name— that a judge sentenced …[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Camperdown has actually given the answer to the problem relating to Mr Nelson Mandela’s release. The situation has been stated over and over again that there is an easy way out for him and that is to denounce violence. The main consolation is that this matter is being considered by the Cabinet on a constant basis and in due time the necessary steps will obviously be taken, should there be co-operation from the relevant gentleman. The hon the Minister shall no doubt deal with this particular aspect in his speech.

*Mr Chairman, please allow me, on behalf of this side of the Committee, to add my congratulations to those of Mr Fanie van der Merwe en Profs Ellison Khan and J C de Wet on their newly acquired status as Senior Consulti. That is, of course, a well-deserved status they have acquired for their contribution to the administration of justice in South Africa.

I should also like to begin, on a personal note, by thanking the hon the Minister for his recent visit to Port Elizabeth, in particular to the staff of the courts and the Prisons Service. I want to assure him that that is sincerely appreciated by the community there. It was also a singular occasion that night when, unannounced, he attended a sitting of the small claims court.

Approximately a month ago, on 23 March, a report appeared on the front page of the Vrye Weekblad. This newspaper calls itself “die nuwe stem vir ’n nuwe Suid-Afrika.” The headline read: ‘Kobie wil koerant sluit voor hy oopmaak.” In the first paragraph of this newspaper one reads the following:

Further on in the relevant report it becomes apparent that the newspaper being referred to is the New African of Durban.

This is a very serious accusation, because it implies that the hon the Minister is prejudiced and does not, in point of fact, believe in freedom of the Press. I think that is a gross reflection on the integrity of our hon Minister of Justice.

This message presents the reading public with a picture of unfairness and they are left with a further distorted view of things. The reading public does not always have the time to ascertain or check what the actual position is. They read these news reports and sometimes believe them unconditionally. This report must, of course, be part of a technique of subtly brainwashing the reader in order to elicit his opposition to the government of the day.

What is the correct state of affairs with regard to newspapers? Newspapers are registered in terms of the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act of 1971. This Act is administered by the Minister of Home Affairs and his department. Section 15 (1) (b) of the Internal Security Act, however, makes provision for the fact that before that newspaper can be registered, two things must happen. Firstly a period of 21 days must lapse after the receipt of an application and, secondly, the applicant must pay an amount determined by the Minister of Justice in terms of section 15 (1) (b) of the Act.

The Minister of Justice’s function is therefore merely to determine the amount that has to be paid as a deposit, and that amount may not exceed R40 000. There is, however, a further provision in section 5 that has to be met. The deposit has to be collected if the Minister “is not satisfied that a prohibition under section 5 will not at any time become necessary in respect of such newspaper”. Thus a newspaper could either be banned for a certain period of time or completely if it aimed at promoting, or promoted, the objectives as set out in section 5 of the principal Act. These objectives are, amongst others, that of endangering the security of the State or the maintenance of law and order, or serving as a means of causing or encouraging hostility between the various population groups or parts of these population groups.

On making enquiries it became apparent that before the hon the Minister had determined the deposit in this case, he wrote a letter about this to the applicant. It is this letter to which reference was made in the report. In this letter the hon the Minister set out the reasons why he was not convinced of the fact that the newspaper would not be banned. The important aspect lies in the fact that on that occasion the hon the Minister also applied the audi alteram partem rule by giving the applicant an opportunity to make representations to him before he determined the deposit. From the report it is apparent that the editorial staff did respond to the hon the Minister’s invitation. That attention must have been given to the representations is also apparent from the fact that the hon the Minister did not determine the maximum amount of R40 000, but only half that amount, ie R20 000. An important point is that this amount was, in fact, paid and that the newspaper was registered. Nor must one lose sight of the fact that in these cases the deposits are a sword hanging over the publisher’s head and that they serve as a deterrent so that there are no contraventions of the provisions of section 5.

There is another matter I want to refer to, and that is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Desirability of Further Decentralisation of Services by the Supreme Court of South Africa, of which the honourable Mr Justice J J F Hefer was the only member and chairman. I was particularly impressed by this report. Although it only deals with one aspect of the administration of justice, it is completely comprehensive and, in a minor key, compares favourably with the quality and standard of Lord Benson’s report in England which, of course, dealt with a much broader spectrum of the administration of justice. In the Hefer Report all the criteria that have to be taken into account are properly set out, discussed and argued. For the foreseeable future this report will be the major source of reference for the establishment of further provincial or local divisions of the Supreme Court.

In the report he weighs up the interests of uniformity in the administration of justice, which could be achieved with only one provincial division in each province, against the public’s needs and the need for decentralised services that could crop up in a specific area. He comes to the conclusion that no matter how great the need for decentralisation may be, this should never outweigh the necessity for proper and effective administration of justice. This attitude is endorsed in the interests of the sound administration of justice in South Africa. An extremely important recommendation by the commission is that the local circuit divisions should also be made more functional, and for this purpose he suggests that the Rules Board could possibly amend the rules for circuit courts. In the light of this report some of the proposals, contained in the Galgut Report at the time, could possibly be re-examined to see whether some of the problems affecting the rural areas could not be resolved by these means.

At present the Southern Cape is developing at a tremendous rate, and as a result of the Mossgas Project it is clearly apparent that there will be a tremendous increase in the population there.

As the population in that area increases— the fact that they are far-removed from the other legal services also contributes to this— the need for a special service there will increase.

It would perhaps be possible to consider a permanent circuit court somewhere in the Southern Cape area. I think that a great deal can be learned from the experience in the Eastern Cape, where Port Elizabeth’s local circuit court has become a permanent institution, subsequently being formally established as the South-Eastern Cape Local Division— the only one since 1910, the report states.

There is also East London, which at present has a reasonably permanent circuit court which could in time, by a process of evolution, develop and obtain a different status.

I do, of course, also endorse the recommendation in this report. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to refer briefly to the aspect of legal training which is referred to on page 23 of the recently published report of the Department of Justice, and more particularly to the position with regard to the area in which I live, the Western Cape, and to the segment of the population to which I belong. I notice that last year 194 courses were conducted by the legal training branch of the Department of Justice. I would like to know from the hon the Minister how many persons who attended these courses were from the Western Cape and, more particularly, how many were members of the community of which I am a member?

I would also like to refer to legal education at university level. I made enquiries to the dean of the law faculty at the University of the Western Cape, an institution attended almost exclusively by members of my community. He tells me that, whereas an average of 500 students would be admitted to the law faculty in the first year of study, half of that number would be received in the second year of study and so forth until in the fifth year of study, the student numbers would only be in the twenties. This has in fact happened in this particular year.

I enquired whether any active recruitment was done by the Department of Justice at the universities and at this university in particular. I was told that no such active recruitment was done. If no advice and motivation is offered by the department, how can prospective legal practitioners be expected to look forward to eventually obtaining their legal qualifications?

I made further enquiries about bursaries allocated to law students at this particular university.

*According to my information no bursaries have been allocated for law studies at the University of the Western Cape during the year 1989. Bursaries are allocated by the Commission of Administration in Pretoria. Upon enquiry I was informed by that institution that they had allocated no bursaries at all. The Administration: House of Representatives for the most part allocates bursaries to the University of the Western Cape and administers them. From them too I learnt that no bursaries had been allocated this year.

†The Administration: House of Representatives say that they grant bursaries only to students to whom they can offer employment. My own experience is that the only avenue open to them is that of going into private practice. That is a hard road to follow for any young person starting out on a career.

*During the last few years, when I came to live in the Western Cape, I practised as an attorney in the Boland for most of the time. I must say that I did not come across a single Coloured public prosecutor in the Boland towns of Stellenbosch, Wellington, Paarl, Wolseley, Ceres, Malmesbury or any other town. Who are for the most part, the criminals in these towns in the Boland? They are people with my skin colour. They are the people charged with various crimes, but, as I say, not a single Coloured public prosecutor has been appointed there. [Interjections.]

So why do we not get Brown public prosecutors or even Brown magistrates in the Boland? Only in the Peninsula will one sporadically find a Coloured person acting as public prosecutor or judicial officer. [Interjections.] If there were more appointments of this nature, our students would be motivated to accept service in the Public Service. Then we would perhaps see Coloured judges appointed to the Bench of the Supreme Court. [Interjections.]

We now come to the appointment of messengers of the court and deputy sheriffs I will once again use the Peninsula as an example. Which members of the population are mostly summonsed for debt? It is people of my skin colour. [Interjections.] It is not because these people do not want to pay their debt, but because they receive poor remuneration compared to the work they have to do. It is fully attributable to …

Poor remuneration?

Poor remuneration. It is because they are paid too little. It is not because they do not want to meet their financial obligations. [Interjections.] As they say, and I indeed believe, everything can be blamed on the policy of apartheid, where a man earns less because he has the wrong skin colour … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon members should not become so excited.

Hundreds of summonses are served, and that means that they have to be served on the people in our Coloured residential areas. For this reason I ask why we cannot appoint a Coloured messenger of the court to do that job.

†Why are these plum jobs reserved for White appointees? I know of no Coloured Messenger of the Court who has been appointed in any district in the Western Cape area. [Interjections.]

*I would briefly like to touch on a matter which was discussed by several speakers, namely that of child molestation.

†It appears to be a new disease that has overtaken our community as a whole, irrespective of the race group of those involved—Coloured, White, or whatever. It occurs irrespective of their social standing, and it does not matter what prominent position they have in life. We have had occasions which we have read of in the Press where people whom one would expect to know better, are making themselves guilty of this type of practice. I am glad to see that the law is being absolutely hard and tough on them.

I also want to refer to the other very topical question of corruption. The courts and the Department of Justice are stepping down hard on people who are guilty of this particular malpractice. [ Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I will not comment on the remarks made by the previous speaker because my time is very limited.

Every time the justice budget is debated in this House I speak regarding the drug menace and I shall go on speaking on the same issue until some constructive and decisive steps are taken to stop the drug barons from turning our country into a zombie land.

It cannot be denied that the recent reports in the media regarding the uncovering of massive drug factories is cause for grave concern. I want to thank very sincerely the Narcotics Bureau and the SA Police for the great role they are playing in this hideous drug game. After four years as a member of this Parliament who has taken a keen interest in the drug issue, I have come to a sad conclusion—that due to the present weak law governing the entire drug issue, the criminals are protected more than the victims and the police today.

From December 1988 until 22 February 1989, I had members of the Narcotics Bureau and the SA Police raid just one street, namely Chiappini Street in Cape Town. The result was that 17 were arrested. Sadly, I must add, most of the arrested paid a R300 fine and they are now doing better business than before.

One can speak for hours and carry on on this subject and not get anywhere. I therefore submit that a judicial commission of inquiry be set up to review all the drug laws. If action is not taken to stop our country from being strangled by the drug barons the NP Government of South Africa will have to take full responsibility. The hon members of the two Houses must take full responsibility for the drug menace in our country. Somehow I get the feeling that the majority parties are afraid to table the necessary legislation to destroy the drug monster.

Which two Houses? What about the third House?

I am referring to the House of Assembly, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives. The majority parties in all three Houses. The majority parties are afraid to table the necessary legislation to destroy the drug monster. I appeal to the hon the Minister of Justice to introduce the death penalty for drug importers and anybody who uses minor children to sell dangerous drugs. I have been witnessing the Narcotics Bureau fighting with little success against fancy speaking lawyers and advocates who defend the drug barons and drug importers who are dangerous to our children and our country.

What did the hon member say?

I want the death sentence for drug dealers.

Too many people today are unemployed in our country, especially members of the Brown community as well as members of the Indian community. We can save these people if we can pick them up off the streets and give them jobs or employment in the Department of Justice or the Department of Law and Order. We could give these people employment and even make them special constables to clean up our townships and our streets. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as a member of one of the Houses of Parliament I must deny … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members should not converse so loudly. I cannot allow them to make so much noise.

Mr Chairman, I was just going to say that as a member of one of the Houses I must deny being responsible for any drug abuse, provided of course one does not include certain liquid refreshments in that category.

As the hon the Minister knows, law that is good law is the end-result of wholesome customs and mores. Law exists to regulate the coexistence of individuals. It exists to minimise the friction that is inevitable when human beings get together. It also exists to promote harmony even where amity is absent. Law, of course, is distinguishable from statute. True law is always good. It is societally functional and promotes cohesion. However, some statutes can be and sometimes are dysfunctional and divisive, even vicious and evil—for example, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Group Areas Act.

The hon the Minister of Justice is entrusted with the proper administration of the law and it is his duty to facilitate the holding of our courts in the highest respect by the general populace—even where, as in our country, the vast majority are voteless and politically voiceless in the central legislature.

If the people in general do not hold our courts in such high esteem that they will accept and abide by judgments of court even when they disagree with those judgments, such acceptance must be emanating not from mere submission or resignation, but from acceptance of the impartiality not only of the courts but also of all the organs involved in the administration of justice. Unless that prevails there inevitably will be frustration, restlessness and disrespect for the law. When that happens the whole judicial system as well as the rule of law breaks down. Then there can arise the kind of feuding that existed in Sicily and which unhappily is currently going on in parts of Natal. If the hon the Minister wants law to supervene and for legal institutions to retain not merely their authority but the essential public esteem, he must become aware of some of the factors that erode that esteem.

The case in which a certain White judicial officer in the Transvaal imposed a very mild slap on the wrist of a White man who killed a human being in such brutality that would shame even a scavenging hyena, did nothing to promote esteem for the law or for the judiciary. It is regrettable that that judicial officer did so much harm to the high esteem in which our superior courts have rightly been held. When a magistrate does that kind of thing it is bad enough, but when a superior judicial officer does so it is infinitely worse. However, once a judge is appointed to the Bench, the hon the Minister of course should not and dare not intervene. That kind of helplessness does not prevail, however, in respect of the performance or the non-performance or the under-performance of his duties by any Attorney-General. In a recent instance it was publicly clear, even if by inference, that the hon the Minister intervened to ensure prosecution of certain persons against whom charges had been withdrawn.

On 2 March 1989 a detailed letter—querying the conduct of a trial in Cape Town in which the killer of a 17-year-old schoolboy, namely Jayraj Naidoo, was allowed to get off with a ridiculously small fine—was sent by me to the hon the Minister. From the facts it appears that Jayraj Naidoo was involved in a minor altercation at school with the son of a rich and powerful Rylands businessman. On hearing of this altercation the businessman then illegally armed himself with a handgun which he put on half-cock and then proceeded by car to the school.

He told the court that he had been informed that gangsters had attacked his son. There was not a tittle of corroboration of this version. Nevertheless, when he got to or near the school, the businessman clearly saw that there was not a single gangster, but only schoolboys. With his gun in clear sight, he ordered several of the schoolboys into his car. His conduct in detaining those boys was illegal. The boys were identifiable and the police would have had no difficulty in locating them. Afraid because of the gun, the boys got into the car. While the car was moving, the man hit one boy with the gun. Thereafter he grabbed Jayraj Naidoo by his hair, pulled him forward and hit him on the head with the. gun. The trigger of the gun, already prepared for firing, was obviously pulled, and the boy was shot in the head, killing him. The killer clearly committed a number of illegal acts resulting in the taking of a human life— the life of a boy on the threshold of living.

The man was charged with murder but a plea of culpable homicide was accepted. Extraordinary exculpatory evidence was allowed to be given unchallenged, whereas the record shows that even a second-year articled clerk would have put most of that exculpatory evidence into issue. The State failed to produce evidence which, unless there was serious negligence by the State, must have been available and could have sustained a charge of murder or at least demonstrated the utter callousness of the killer, which ought to have resulted in a killer not escaping with a derisory fine of R1 000.

This case most definitely does not inculcate respect for the law and I fear it puts the administration of justice into disrepute.

The family of this boy and important sections of the public in Rylands are of the belief that the wealth and power of the killer and his friends in high places, coupled with the fact that young Jayraj Naidoo is what is called a political activist, influenced the result. Whether that is justified or not, that is the effect and the judicial system suffers as a result.

I realise the hon the Minister is a busy man. However, his department has had enough time to make the necessary enquiries and I trust the hon the Minister will deal with the matter in his reply.

Then again, the great esteem in which our judiciary ought to be held, is adversely affected by its Whiteness. Two years ago I had the honour of meeting several distinguished American judges. A month ago I was visited here in Parliament by a distinguished European judge. One question was common: “Why is it that all your judges are White? Do you not have Black or Brown barristers capable of being judges?” The answer I was compelled to give was that it was due to the history of racialism in our country.

Of course we have barristers with the ability and experience who ought to have been made judges years ago. One such is advocate Ismail Mohammed, a senior counsel who is internationally renowned. However, such is the result of racialism that a South African, who is provedly an excellent lawyer, is more honoured outside his country than within it. He is an appellate judge of two internationally recognised African states and has held judgeships in another. As one of our busiest lawyers he has given splendid service to the Bar. In the highest traditions of his profession an advocate like he almost has a duty to give greater service to his country by serving in the judiciary in his more mature years, when even good lawyers become mellower and certainly wiser. He can only do that, however, if invited by the hon the Minister.

By his failure to do so, the hon the Minister has not only missed the chance of acquiring the judicial services of an eminent lawyer who without doubt will be an ornament to our judiciary, but also seriously dents the judiciary and puts ashes upon the lustre which it richly deserves by letting the impression gain ground— as it has done—that race and colour are the factors.

Why does this sorry state of affairs exist? Recently, in the House of Representatives, the hon the Minister once again promised that the colour bar in the judiciary would be removed. He owes an explanation to Parliament and to the public for his failure to do so.

You are not doing him a service.

I am not doing the hon the Minister a service?

No, you are not doing him a service, I am warning you.

I do not intend to do any individual a service. I intend to do the judiciary a service. I am trying to do the country a service.

You are not a wise man!

I may be unwise but the country demands that we have judges without any colour bar. If the hon the Minister thinks that is unwise, let it be unwise. The country will see what the situation is. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he intends to perpetuate the racial discrimination of the past or whether he intends to do away with that kind of racial discrimination. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I had not intended reacting to the hon member for Reservoir Hills I only want to state briefly that the speech which he made here in no way enhanced the prestige of the legal system and harmed his own.

In the limited time at my disposal I would rather react to three previous speakers who broached a very important and topical subject, that is the report of our Law Commission on a bill of rights. I shall react to comments by the hon members for Bonteheuwel, Berea and Losberg. Obviously such comment will have to be fleeting because time is a factor.

Two years ago I adopted the standpoint in the discussion of this Vote that we would have to examine the position of the bench so that it could be elevated to act as an independent arbiter if a clash should arise between the interests of the State and those of a group, community or individual. I also said that, to be truly independent, the bench should be equal to the Government and, like the Government, subject only to the Constitution.

Hon members will therefore appreciate that I regard the document which has been published now as a positive one which in my opinion cannot be treated lightly. The Law Commission says in this piece of work that the adoption of a bill of rights should form part of a new constitution. It should not stand alone. It comprises an entire negotiating process and one cannot introduce the bill on its own. If one were to do this, one would be laying oneself open to the accusation that one was issuing a document which was not worth the paper on which it was printed. I agree with the opinion that it should form part of a new constitution and that a body other than Parliament should ultimately have testing rights when a conflict between various interests was to be considered. Then it would have to be generally acceptable, however, and, like the constitution, the bill would have to take our country’s unique circumstances into account. We differed with the former PFP on this particular aspect over the years and also differ with the DP arising from what the hon member for Berea said here.

The commission indicates that CP fears that, if the legislator were not sovereign, the security of the State could be adversely effected, is not a well-founded objection because the protection of rights in the bill is subject to legislation aimed at State security, public order, public interest, good morals, public health, the administration of law, the rights of others and the prevention of disorder and crime. The commission states all these provisos. The commission then adds that such legislation will have to be able to stand the test of what is acceptable in a democratic state.

The adoption of a bill of rights in a new constitution would therefore deprive the legislator of his supreme power because the legislature and judiciary would become equal partners in the State structure. Nevertheless it is a specific requirement in a multiethnic country like the RSA to task an independent bench with the function of protecting fundamental human rights and group interests like culture, language and religion.

The hon member for Loskop … [Interjections.] Losberg. I apologise. I did not do that deliberately.

The hon member for Losberg, who is a good colleague of mine, put the standpoint that, because group values like culture, language and religion will be protected as individual rights according to the recommendation of the South African Law Commission, this will actually provide no protection at all. The point is that the Law Commission says that a clear distinction should be drawn between group values and political group rights. This means that the composition of Parliament and subordinate legislative bodies has to be regulated elsewhere in the constitution. These group values therefore have to be distinguished from political group rights so there are political group rights which have to be protected in structures in the new constitution.

The Law Commission also leaves room for dealing with defined groups in the rest of the constitution and, although it says it is unnecessary to define groups in the bill, it is possible to work with defined groups where the protection of political group rights is the issue. It is also a misconception, as the hon member for Bonteheuwel argued in his speech, that the bill of rights will absolutise the individual because important group values will be protected in the document and any member of such a group can protect those rights by making use of recognised legal machinery.

It should also be emphasised that the Law Commission’s working paper does not conflict with declared NP policy and, by implication, the Law Commission confirms the possibility of various constitutional models which are calculated to eliminate the danger of domination and to protect minorities. This working paper suggests an interesting way of dealing with the protection of own communities.

The gigantic task carried out by the Law Commission gained it great credibility overseas as well as within the country. I do not agree with the hon member for Losberg either where he calls it a useless document or one of minor value. The Law Commission was accorded this extreme credibility because its members were so objective and fearless. We have to respect them for this. The Law Commission indicated fearlessly that the protection of individual rights and group values would have no credibility or legitimacy in a new constitutional structure if one of the basic human rights, that is universal and equal franchise, were not recognised.

It also indicated without qualification that enforced legal discrimination on the basis of race or colour would not be tolerated. But the Law Commission left room that, in the rest of the constitution where political rights were dealt with, there could be differentiation between groups. That is the important point.

To be legitimate the new constitution has to be the result of negotiation between representatives of all groups and it has to be legitimised by a general referendum. This method of operating makes compromise possible and, when the Law Commission’s final report is tabled—I still have hopes that this will be next year—it will have made a valuable contribution to the process of conciliation and compromise in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, to the Romans from whom we derive an element of our principles of law, that is the Roman-Dutch law, justice was the goddess whose symbols were a throne that storms could not shake, a pulse that passion could not stir, eyes that were blind to any feeling of favour or ill-will and a sword that fell on offenders with equal certainty and with impartial strength.

We need to ask ourselves what we are doing to the stern features of that statue which symbolises the justice on which we have prided ourselves over the years. I am referring to the continuance of the state of emergency which has been in force for some time now because there seem to be no signs that it will be lifted. The question is whether this state of emergency is going to become a part of our permanent life-style or whether it will be lifted soon.

Is it our intention to devalue the judiciary as we have a habit of devaluing every other important institution? Instead of defending our judges against political pressures and threats, instead of jealously guarding their integrity and impartiality, we have permitted the executive to invoke the state of emergency to supersede our eminent judges of calibre. Our judges and courts are respected throughout the world which fact was amplified by the hon member for Bonteheuwel.

In as much as the symptoms of our malaise may lie in economics, industrial disputes, unrest and general civil disobedience, we cannot overlook the underlying symptoms of this disease. They are moral, political and constitutional and, in order to cure this disease, we must recognise them as such.

We have an imperishable heritage and that is the independence of the judiciary, and let us accord it the respect that it deserves. Let us avoid this conflict between the judiciary and the executive, and not arrogate to ourselves what they are eminently able to handle.

The tone of public life has reached an all-time low with the continuing state of emergency. Can we blame John Citizen for his cynical observation that if the allegations against politicians are to be investigated, we shall need to have ombudsmen the way Australia has rabbits.

The picture is not one of unrelieved gloom. We have, as I said earlier, a proud heritage. It is not too late to redeem ourselves. However, we cannot allow this law, the state of emergency, to be applied indefinitely because it is inconsistent with the fundamental rights of individuals.

This is the other matter that I would like to touch upon. The situation prevailing in South Africa today is the same which prevailed in civilised democracies throughout the world. The law of habeas corpus has evolved to free the citizen from the issue of a warrant without a stated cause, from arrest without a legal warrant, from imprisonment without trial and from punishment without a conviction. I should therefore like to appeal to the hon the Minister to insist and ensure that we do not overlook this fundamental element of our legal system.

The other matter that I would like to dwell upon is the need to make our courts of law more accessible to the people. The hon member for Camperdown amplified the question of the congestion in courts and I would also endorse those comments made by him. I would also like to acknowledged the initiatives taken by the Ministry and the hon the Minister in particular in establishing the small claims courts legislation which I presume is being reviewed frequently in terms of creating more of the courts closest to the people who make most use of them. It is also gratifying to know that the criticisms of this court have been good and not adverse as anticipated in some quarters.

I would also like to acknowledge the implementation of the operation of community service. I am sure that this will definitely assist in rehabilitating convicted persons, particularly first-time offenders, thus creating a stable society and perhaps benefiting the community at large.

Finally, I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister to open his department up to more people of colour. I am not pleading for affirmative action. However, the department is conspicuous by the prominence of one community group only.

Mr Chairman, I shall confine my remarks to Vote No 14—Justice. I would like to cover certain aspects with reference to the excellent work, particularly in an investigation done by the Law Commission. I am aware that constant investigation is being done regarding irrelevant and archaic laws which have become obsolete.

Let me refer to the Matrimonial Property Act, No 88 of 1984. The investigations and recommendations have completely reformed the law of matrimonial property. The reforms vastly improve the status and contractual capacity of wives, particularly in marriages contracted in community of property.

The system of joint administration of the estate now makes a wife an equal partner thereby protecting her against any form of abuse. It is praiseworthy to note that in terms of the Marriage and Matrimonial Property Law Amendment Act, No 3 of 1988, certain provisions are applicable to civil marriages of Black persons. A Black wife now enjoys the same privileges and protection as wives of other population groups. This is in line with the policy of the LP because equality is emphasised in respect of all women in marriage irrespective of colour.

I remain completely convinced that it is imperative that more money and sufficient funds be made available to the Department of Justice. The purchase of labour-saving equipment will upgrade the quality of the legal system in this country. The quality product of any legal system depends on the competency and reliability of recorded proceedings. Reliable recording machines would save the courts thousands of working hours spent on judicial work. The sophistication of our courts can only be judged by the prompt availability and quality of work.

It is important that factors leading to the resignation of trained personnel be addressed comprehensively. The department cannot afford the luxury of trained officers and well-equipped personnel being lured away by attractive positions in the private sector. This invariably places a heavy burden on senior staff taking into account that much precious time has been taken up by in-service training. The hon the Minister should resolutely militate against resignations and should encourage his officers by better remuneration. This matter must be addressed immediately.

The hon the Minister should—this is imperative—upgrade the working conditions of men in his department. We on this side of the House acknowledge with thankfulness that those officers who voluntarily work overtime keep the volume of work up to date.

We place on record our appreciation that magistrates’ offices, particularly in rural towns, provide the agency for other auxiliary services on behalf of Government departments. For this we are thankful.

Once more we express our heartfelt thanks and appreciation for the 11 men on death row who were reprieved. I, in particular, want to mention the names of Messrs Dajee and McDonald of Westbury, Johannesburg. Their family, friends and relatives are truly thankful for the most gracious gesture and mercy on the part of the hon the Minister of Justice and the hon the State President.

I would appeal to the hon the Minister to look into the possibility of repealing capital punishment. This should be done in conjunction with the removal from the Statute Book of those Acts which were responsible for the commission of such crimes. We are quite aware of the anguish, frustration, appeals, petitions and applications and, coupled with this, the long drawn-out process that follows before capital punishments is imposed.

South Africa is a Christian and civilized country. Our greatest worry is the increasing number of cases which must be reviewed by the directorate each year. A judicial commission should be appointed to look into capital punishment. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is hardly possible to do justice to every participant in the debate thus far, because if I were to attempt to give fair and balanced replies to all hon members, as could be expected, it would mean that with the time allocated to us we would have to spend approximately one minute on each subject. As far as I know approximately 90 subjects, if not more, have thus far been discussed.

Some hon members took the opportunity to discuss many more subjects. I do, of course, defend the right of every chief spokesman to obtain as much of the limelight as possible for his party at this time. I respect that right. What I do not respect, however, is the process of debating without expecting to receive an answer because a matter is debated in such a way that it does not matter what the Minister says or what the answer is, as long as one can, by way of publicity, capitalise on a situation, for example as the hon member for Reservoir Hills did.

We as a justice family are an extremely fortunate group, and in the joint committee have achieved a great deal of success. In the process I discussed matters, from a position of trust, with many hon members on both sides of the House, taking them into my confidence. This afternoon unfortunately—and I want to take the strongest exception to this—an hon member nevertheless attacked me in the House, despite an understanding that a specific matter was a sensitive issue, and this was done in spite of the fact that I had given him certain information. That is in the worst possible parliamentary tradition and, secondly, the worst possible tradition as far as justice is concerned.

It certainly is possible for me to attempt to react to high points of the debate, and if hon members find that I have overlooked them, I shall try to get round to them tomorrow. If not, I shall attempt to do justice to them by way of a personal reply.

There were two or three main themes that received a great deal of attention. I am referring to the question of the death penalty. I shall therefore discuss the matter now.

There is also the question of the South African Law Commission’s report. I have learned that there are still speakers on both sides of the House that may speak on this subject, and it will therefore perhaps be prudent of me to react to it tomorrow. I shall, however, try to do justice to specific speakers because they are the main spokesmen of their parties. Things change so rapidly, however, that it is not always possible to keep up either.

On this issue I am looking forward to my friend, the hon member for Sandton, entering this debate. I shall then also pay tribute to him as his party’s former spokesman. It seems to me as if it meets with everyone’s approval that the hon member for Berea is now the chief spokesman on justice. I take it there is a very good reason why this shift took place, and I take it that it is thought the hon member for Sandton will make a considerable contribution elsewhere. The fact remains—I want this placed on record—that as far as the Minister and the group was concerned, that hon member conducted himself in the very best traditions of Parliament. He leaves us as a most respected chief spokesman on justice. I merely want to make that point.

There are other hon members who also came to the fore this afternoon as chief spokesmen, and we shall identify them. Hon members will permit me to extend the NP’s sincere thanks to our chief spokesman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, for his well-considered approach to matters involving justice. This has cemented ties and served the administration of justice. I also want to give him the assurance that in this regard the high esteem in which he is held goes far beyond the confines of Parliament.

The hon member for Bethal asked me about the Supreme Court building in Pretoria. I merely want to say very briefly that as a good Free Stater I do not, of course, want the Transvaal to think that we are neglecting them. In this specific case we have very definitely placed the Supreme Court building in Pretoria as high on the priority list as possible. Having said that, however, I must also tell hon members that as an impatient man, when it comes to a matter about which I do not always know a great deal, for example construction work and the problems of architects and quantity surveyors, things are always too slow for my liking. I also join hon members in eagerly looking forward to our having, in the future, a total of 32 new court-rooms and a total of 46 new judges’ chambers.

The excavations are in the offing—contract 1, 23 June 1989—and we can therefore accept the fact that the construction of the building will probably commence in January 1990. The project as a whole costs upward of R45 million, and we know there is what is termed escalation. I look forward to evidence of real progress being made.

The hon member raised another important matter here, ie the question of the remission of previous sentences. Why that is so, I do not know, but there is a considerable increase in the number of requests reaching our desks for reprieves, in other words pardons for crimes, or to put it more precisely, the elimination of the facts of record.

We examined the matter and remembered that in terms of the previous Criminal Procedure Act, after a period of 10 years a person’s convictions in regard to certain crimes, excluding those listed in Schedule 1, automatically lapsed. In a decision the courts have previously stated that one should guard against the book of past sins always remaining open. The dark shadows of past guilt remain alive in our memories, regardless of the passage of time, etc, according to that ruling.

We get umpteen smaller or lesser offences that can crop up, and that is why I want to examine this aspect. There are those who, in their youth, have perhaps done nothing worse than stealing fruit, or perhaps the equivalent of stealing fruit. And who has not stolen fruit in his young days—I am now speaking literally, not figuratively. [Interjections.] In those cases the matter had to be looked into.

This brings me to the question of decriminalisa-tion which, at the insistence of Parliament, has been receiving our attention for some time now. By decriminalisation we do not mean the transfer from one court to another, but in fact no longer regarding something as a crime. That is the one course of action.

The other course is depenalisation with a view to removing certain criminal jurisdiction from the courts and rather dealing with the matter administratively in such a way that a person does, in fact, feel the pinch, but does not build up a criminal record. For example, we are aware of the fact that 75% of all traffic offences are stationary violations with which our courts are kept busy. We object to our system of magistrates’ courts being used as a mechanism for collecting money for the municipal accounts of our towns and cities. [Interjections.] I am therefore going to approach the Cabinet with specific proposals. I promised hon members that we would examine the matter. Recently I have received an indication from the Director-General that in the coming week or so he would submit a concrete report to me. There are very positive indications. The objective can be achieved by close co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Department of Transport, and this will probably result in a statutory amendment. Very interesting proposals were made by a variety of interested parties, and we shall be examining this very interesting further development.

Hon members are aware of the fact that on several occasions, in the House of Representatives, I mentioned the appointment of their people as justices of the peace, because we intend to employ justices of the peace to a larger extent in the future. We are on the eve of involving justices of the peace to a greater extent in the adjudication of decriminalised and, to a larger extent, depenalised offences. This means that we shall involve the public to a greater extent in law enforcement.

The hon member for Bethal raised a very interesting matter. He asked me how we felt about court proceedings being televised. I want to take a very, very strong stand on this issue. It is common knowledge that even our administration of justice does not escape the actions of revolutionaries. Nor do radicals have any respect for our administration of justice, regardless of where in the political spectrum they find themselves. Examples of a show of force could include the singing of freedom songs and the use of gestures in court, but this could also include people in khaki uniforms with weapons at their hips. [Interjections.] I am not making a political issue out of this, and I know the hon member for Bethal is not doing so either. He is pre-eminently known for the tremendous respect he has for the administration of justice, and that is why he raised the matter.

He is a member of the AWB’s Grand Council. [Interjections.]

Let me tell that hon member that we are dealing with a very serious matter, and I must tell the hon member for Bethal that he has my respect. The hon member for Bethal is adopting the correct course.

Against this background let me say that I would have no sympathy if Parliament wanted us to take action against extremists. Inevitably, owing to the sensationalism involved, such conduct on the part of the accused or sympathisers receives wide media coverage, and the danger inherent in this is that in future other extremists may be induced to adopt a similar attitude. Against this background, for example, I examined the so-called Strydom incident and the television coverage in court. From the investigation it appeared that the mechanisms contained in existing legislation were possibly adequate to control the conduct of all individuals inside court buildings, including the taking of photographs and TV coverage. From the legislation it is clearly apparent that the presiding officer must be granted unrestricted discretion, and for a variety of reasons his conduct must be such that his authority can be imposed, in absolute terms, on photographers, newspapermen and sympathisers, regardless of who and what they are. I think all hon members endorse this. I therefore want to make it clear that we place a very high premium on the dignity and decorum of our courts—both higher courts and lower courts. Good order is dependent on this image and perception of our courts. I therefore want to state unequivocally that any possible restriction on the taking of photographs or television coverage is not aimed at curtailing accessibility to our courts in any way, but primarily at protecting the parties concerned, and also placing the dignity of the courts beyond all doubt. [Interjections.]

If the need were to manifest itself, in terms of the Demonstrations In Or Near Court Buildings Prohibition Act, and in consultation with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, I envisage having certain amendments to this Act investigated, the object being to reserve, for myself and my colleagues, further powers for the control of conduct of all persons in court buildings. The relevant Act was specifically placed on the Statute Book to ensure that court proceedings took place in an atmosphere of peace and calm, free from outside intimidation, etc.

The hon member for Bethal asked me about the question of maintenance. The report is virtually ready. Hon members on my side of the House have, on various occasions—in our group discussions too—spoken about this matter, and there is a new dispensation in the offing.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, to whom I have already paid tribute and conveyed my respect, asked me—apart from other matters he raised—about the regulation of the advocates’ profession. Let me tell him that he is correct if he is saying that at this stage we must obtain a uniform approach as far as that profession is concerned, specifically since we have heard that bodies such as lawyers and others are knocking on the door asking to be allowed to appear in our courts and to be given other appointments.

There are also academics who are knocking at the door. I am knocking at the door, because the source from which advocates are drawn, for appointment to the Bench, is becoming depleted.

On occasion I have stated that the Bar is the most important source for appointments to the Bench. Today this is still the policy, and I want to reiterate it. It can never be the exclusive or one and only source, however. There are deserving practitioners, academics and people in the Public Service who have already proved themselves, for example the late Chief Justice Steyn, and who can qualify for appointment. I still, however, subscribe to the idea that the Bar, by way of the specialised attributes involved, its cultural background and the opportunity it presents for shaping an independent attitude—more so than would be possible elsewhere, it could be argued—is still the proper source. Specifically for that reason, and since we hold this profession in such high regard, the Bar ought to put its house in order.

The hon member speaks about a criterion for admission which lays down a greater or lesser requirement for participation in Bar proceedings and wardship. It is also possible for a person to appear in the Supreme Court, however, without having been through his wardship. This De Jager incident in the Smuts Report specifically highlighted the need for proper control and uniformity by way of identification.

What solution must we find first? First we must find a solution for the academic who also wants to practise and is also equipped to practise. What is the attitude of our Bar to such persons? If we can find a solution for this, if we can get a solution from the central Bar Council, I am prepared, with great circumspection, to examine all the recommendations of the Smuts Report which could lead to our obtaining one controlling body with a view to ensuring a certain degree of uniformity.

In that case I foresee greater clarity about the admission of advocates, and I think the academics would like to co-operate if they knew that it would, in fact, be possible for them to practise, through associated membership or some or other mechanism. [Interjections.]

†The hon member Mr Thaver asked me about the small claims courts. He is correct when he says that this is a very popular institution. At present we have 1 200 commissioners. We serve 11,5 million people, which is almost 70% of our country’s population. These courts function with a minimum of governmental financial support. They receive and deal with 80 000 enquiries per year. They are already disposing of 50 000 cases per year, without actually detracting from the number of cases that are being heard in the magistrates’ courts. This means that previously there was a need for the ordinary man to have his day in court. Now he has his day in court.

I really wish to pay tribute to the advocates, the attorneys and the academics for their contribution in this connection. They serve as commissioners and I believe they actually compete to serve there. At present there is a need for more commissioners to come forward, and I should like to invoke the assistance of all and sundry to encourage more and more commissioners to render this service.

I shall look into the hon member’s specific problem and I shall respond to him by letter.

*Both the hon member for Vryburg and the hon member for Berea, and I think the hon member for Tongaat, but definitely also the hon member for Houghton, addressed us on the question of the death penalty.

†I am not going to argue that in the course of less than an hour a diversity of opinions has emerged on this issue, because that is the situation. There were different emphases. One hon member proposed complete abolition of the death sentence, while another proposed adjustments. Still another hon member proposed certain reforms. [Interjections.]

That is why we need a commission.

There is also the suggestion of a commission, but then there are also hon members who are now asking us to extend the death penalty to other offences, such as drug offences and child molesting. Therefore there definitely are various views and opinions on the same topic. [Interjections.]

In terms of the South African law at present the death sentence can only be imposed by a superior court. I think hon members will bear with me as I would like to deal with this issue rather comprehensively.

In terms of the Criminal Procedure Act the death sentence may only be imposed upon a person who has been convicted of murder, treason, kidnapping, child-stealing or rape. The sentence may also be imposed upon a person who has been convicted of robbery, attempted robbery, or any offence—whether under common law or under any statute—of housebreaking or attempted housebreaking with the intent to commit an offence, if the courts find that aggravating circumstances were present. The superior court is compelled to impose the death sentence in only one case, and that is when any person is convicted of murder and none of the following circumstances are present: The accused is under the age of 18; the accused is a woman who has been convicted of the murder of a newly-born child, and thirdly, the court is of the opinion that there are extenuating circumstances.

The onus of proof—that is important—rests on the accused. The court is not otherwise compelled to impose the death sentence but has a discretion to impose any sentence other than the death sentence. In the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System, the so-called Viljoen Commission, reference is made to the introduction of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Responsibility of Mentally Deranged Persons, which latter commission expressed its viewpoint as follows:

It is a concept which one would like to leave at that. Nevertheless we are of the opinion that society accepts the following as inherent in punishment: The protection of society; the deterrence of others, the deterrence of a person who is punished from repetition of his conduct; the reform of the criminal; and, as said, retribution.

As far as the protection of the community is concerned the question arises whether the death penalty is the only effective protective measure for society against a special category of hardened criminals, for example murderers, saboteurs and murderers already serving sentences of imprisonment. Those in favour of abolition argue that a term of life imprisonment in maximum security with the exclusion of parole can be imposed instead of the death sentence.

However, in contrast to this it must be pointed out that the protection of the community is not the only aim of punishment. As far as the deterrent aspect of a punishment is concerned it has been argued that there has been no increase in the number of capital cases in our country or in other countries in which the death penalty has been abolished. I refer to countries where abolition has already taken place.

This is however, with due respect, not a criterion according to which the deterrence of the death penalty can be determined. The possibility always exists that particularly in countries where the death penalty has been abolished fairly recently, the communities were in such a state of development and education when the death penalty still applied, that it still had a substantial effect on them by restraining them from committing serious crimes.

Statistics can also never reflect how many potential offenders have been deterred by the death penalty from murdering others. A New York judge expressed himself as follows:

The death penalty also gives effect to one of the principles of punishment, namely retribution, but as I say, this is very low on my personal list. The death penalty is not imposed lightly by our courts. It is imposed in cases of brutal, inhuman and heartless murders, and also in respect of other crimes which fill the community with a sense of horror. Should the death penalty as a form of punishment be abolished for this type of crime, it could in the light of there being no alternative form of punishment, give rise to the situation where the community loses confidence in our penal system and then takes the law into its own hands. This of course will seriously impede the maintenance of law and order.

It would therefore appear that imprisonment as alternative to the death penalty does not have the desired effect. In South Africa it has happened on several occasions that criminals convicted for capital offences who have had their sentences commuted or reprieved, after their release still commit further capital offences. A recent example of this phenomenon is the notorious screwdriver case, Mr W F van der Merwe. In some instances prisoners have even murdered their fellow-prisoners.

According to statistics it would appear as if 17 persons in the period 1966-71, and four persons in the period 1985-88, have been sentenced for a second time for a capital offence. It would appear that after a period of time all these persons committed the same kind of crime that they had previously been punished for despite the fact that they had undergone a stiff term of imprisonment for the first capital offence.

In the case of Van der Merwe hon members have read the correspondence columns in our newspapers. Hon members have also received letters from people crying out in despair for stiffer sentences for the people who commit rape of the innocent.

We ourselves received so many more letters asking us to avoid a repetition of the Van der Merwe case, suggesting that the Appellate Division had erred by allowing his appeal. It ought to be pointed out that in several countries the death sentence is still imposed for a number of crimes; among others 36 states in the United States, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Taiwan, Japan and China. During 1987, 25 people were executed in the USA and on 31 December 1987, 1 982 persons were awaiting execution. I am supplying hon members with this information to tell them that we are not insensitive to the issue of this penalty, and that are nevertheless receptive to ideas for reform. Our law has to question itself every so often and our systems have to take account every so often of the changing needs and circumstances of our time. These cannot be ignored.

The community has a very important role to play as public opinion could be decisive in matters of this nature. Nevertheless it ought to be mentioned that in recent opinion polls it was shown that the community for the most part is in favour of the retention of the death penalty. It was pointed out that in countries where the death penalty had been abolished tremendous pressure was being exerted for the re-introduction of the death penalty even in respect of certain political crimes.

Over the years there has been a continuing debate on the death sentence. I have also taken cognisance of the various recent proposals to amend existing legal provisions in this regard and I shall mention a few of the options. A proposal that the compulsory death penalty in the case of murder without extenuating circumstances be abolished is actually almost offering itself. I want to repeat that a proposal that the compulsory death penalty in the case of murder without extenuating circumstances be abolished, is almost offering itself. Arguments in favour of this option are based on the fact that the prescribing of a compulsory punishment places a restriction on the discretion of the courts, which necessarily has the effect that more death sentences are imposed than would be the case if the courts had the discretion. It is also suggested in this regard that a sentencing judge be empowered but not obliged to pass a death sentence only where aggravating circumstances, the nature and scope of which the courts must determine, are found to be present, the State to bear the onus of proving such circumstances beyond reasonable doubt as part of its case.

Furthermore a second option is that the present appeal procedure be replaced with an automatic right of appeal to the Appellate Division in all cases where the death sentence is imposed; furthermore, that on appeal the Appellate Division be empowered to adjudge the question of extenuating circumstances freely and without in any way being fettered by the finding of the trial court. This was another option offered, that in relation to housebreaking and robbery with aggravating circumstances the present statutory definition of aggravating circumstances be eliminated and it be left to the courts to place their own interpretation upon this term in much the same way as the term “extenuating circumstances” has been interpreted over the years.

A last option offered to us is that the Appellate Division be empowered to a adjudge on the same grounds as the Executive would consider commutation. Therefore this is a matter which has to be approached free from emotion and with great circumspection and sensitivity. In this regard I also make a serious request to hon members as politicians that this issue should not be politicised.

*The death penalty is one of the available common law punishments in the case of serious offences. Up to now even those making serious representations—I do not want to mention their names—have not asked for its abolition, but rather to have it reformed or amended. Whilst I therefore cannot be a party to a campaign aimed at abolishing the death penalty, I am receptive— as I have said—to ideas concerning its reform. The fact that the law must continually adapt to changing needs is something no one can ignore.

Reform, if it comes, will have to take place in such a way, however, that it is gradually phased in so that we avoid situations which would be untenable in practice. Thus far the bodies to which I have referred, and which have made representations for amendments and reform, have shown a great sense of responsibility, and I want to ask them to continue to do so.

The adjustments must therefore take place by a process of evolution. This issue must be kept out of the political arena and left in the hands of those who are really the experts and those who are involved in the practical implementation of the law, ie the Chief Justice, the Judge President and the Bench, and also the Department of Justice.

In conclusion I can give hon members the assurance that the hon the State President himself is very sensitive to this issue. That is all, as far as that subject is concerned, and I trust that hon members will accept it as such.

This brings me to another matter raised by the hon member for Losberg, ie the question of the Advocate-General’s report about Messrs Du Plessis. I see that the hon member for Bethal gave an indication in his newspaper—and this was taken up by other newspapers—that he thought that I had quoted the Advocate-General incorrectly. By implication I deduced that he expected me to say that the Mr P T C du Plessis case was also referred to the Attorney-General.

If hon members were to examine my statement, they would see that it gave an indication of what we were doing with the recommendations. The idea was not to restate the Advocate-General’s recommendations, because after all hon members had those recommendations. The intention was, as a Government, to take every concrete recommendation, deal with it and say what we were going to do.

At ten o’clock hon members obtained the report, and at ten o’clock they heard what the Government was going to do with this report. That was the sequence of events. Nowhere did the Advocate-General say that the P T C du Plessis case should be referred to the Attorney-General. What the Advocate-General did say was that the J P L du Plessis case should be referred to the Attorney-General. That is what I said on page 2 of the statement that was released.

In regard to Mr P T C du Plessis, however, the Advocate-General’s findings indicated certain improprieties—and we referred to that—in the sense that he indicated that the fact that he made no recommendation with regard to Mr Du Plessis was, however “… subject to any possible recommendations in regard to gratuity and/or pension benefits and other privileges that Parliament would wish to make.” He therefore made no recommendation, and he said so. I then said in my statement that that aspect would be referred to the joint committee entrusted with the pension benefits of members of Parliament and political office-bearers.

There is a big difference between a finding indicating improper conduct and a finding indicating that a crime has been committed. Hon members in that corner of the Chamber who are legal men will concede the point. I am shocked at their lack of objectivity in this regard. I am shocked at the attempt to make political capital of the steps taken by the Government in response to the Advocate-General’s report. That was the last thing we envisaged. We have said clearly and precisely what we are going to do in regard to each of the Advocate-General’s recommendations.

If the Advocate-General does not recommend that the case of Mr P T C du Plessis be referred to the Attorney-General, however, on what grounds must I do so? The Attorney-General receives this report and carries out his own investigation. The report is not binding, and my statement does not prescribe to him against whom he must institute legal proceedings. Even if the J P L du Plessis case were referred to the Attorney-General, it would still not mean that he would institute legal proceedings against him. He can use his discretion. I therefore did not commit the Attorney-General to any course of action. In the course of his investigation he can involve any other person, even one not mentioned in this report. We were only responding to what the Advocate-General recommended should be done. We said whether, how and when we were doing so. It was therefore extremely regrettable that the hon members for Bethal and Losberg tried to take this gap.

†The hon member Mr Thaver referred to certain prosecutions which he thinks should be proceeded with with the least possible delay. That issue is in the hands of the Attorney-General of Natal. He does report progress on all cases to the department when we ask him for it. I will ask him for a report on this particular issue.

This brings me to the hon member for Houghton. I find it strange that the hon member judges a decision in a magistrate’s court simply on newspaper reports.

Oh no, quite wrong. I have an enormous list of faxed evidence.

Time and again she assumes the position of a superior court reviewing decisions and reacts to the emotion which she perceives has been generated by a particular court case.

It is outrageous!

In regard to this particular case at Klerksdorp I would grant her one thing. We would have been happier if a perception had not arisen that justice was not done. However, we cannot overlook the fact that the prosecutor, in deciding the way in which he was going to conduct the case, was also guided by the fact that he could have failed on a charge of culpable homicide. That was his decision.

Hers.

It was her decision. [Interjections.] We are not discriminating. Whether it was his or hers, what difference does that make?

Law of interpretation I suppose.

According to her interpretation there was no casual link between the death and the assault.

Now the hon member wants me to appoint a commission to investigate this issue. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member if her party will support me if we introduce the right of appeal on the part of the Attorney-General. If he has this right, he can approach the Supreme Court and may ask for a stiffer sentence if he is of the opinion that a sentence has been inadequate. Grant the Attorney-General the same right of privilege as the ordinary convicted person has. If a person feels aggrieved by a heavy sentence, he may appeal. Can we not arrange for the Attorney-General to have a similar right of appeal if he is dissatisfied and thinks that a sentence is too light? I will believe that the hon member is serious about the application of justice if she supports me. Justice is not only done when the hon member thinks it is. Thousands of people feel that sentences in other cases are too light.

Every day I am confronted by farmers who think that the sentences for stock theft are too light. [Interjections.] Would the hon member support a right of appeal?

What do you think?

I am asking the hon member. Now she does not want to reply.

I have replied. I say it is a ridiculous argument. Obviously this is an outrageous case.

But it is so simple and so easy. If the Attorney-General has a right to appeal, he can put this matter right. He can go to court and ask for a stiffer sentence.

It is absolute nonsense.

It is not nonsense; it is so logical. [Interjections.] If the Attorney-General has the power to take the magistrate on review under given circumstances because he is not satisfied that he has applied his mind to all factors …

Had it been culpable homicide it would have gone on review. Right?

The hon member has shown herself up. She definitely lacks logic in this regard. She must please accept that we are as sensitive as she is. We are looking for solutions. However, we do not read anything sinister in what has transpired there. We are as concerned as that hon member about the image of our courts. We are looking for avenues to find solutions. [Interjections.] However, the hon member must also support us then. The logical thing would perhaps be to grant the Attorney-General the right to appeal. Personally I do not think I will get the support of the practitioners. [Interjections.] The spokesman on our side is smiling and shaking his head. He would not like his clients to be exposed to an appeal on the part of the Attorney-General when he is dissatisfied with a sentence. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am not questioning the hon member’s approach because she is not a lawyer. I actually expect of her not to understand these finer points.

I do understand.

I expect the hon member to react to emotion. However, I do not question her bona fides. She must therefore not question what has transpired in the courts unless she is absolutely certain of her facts. Let us not judge on mere perceptions.

I want to tell the hon member that we are looking for solutions. There may be this single case. Here and there we have a single case among thousands of cases adjudicated and disposed of in our courts of law.

Here and there we have a single case amongst thousands and thousands of cases adjudicated and disposed of in our courts of law. We have thousands of cases but there might be a single one here and there creating the impression that justice might not have been done.

How objective can we be or are we? We have introduced community service sentences. The newspapers welcome it whenever a sentence of community service is imposed. In terms of the approaches of past years and if we were to apply old standards, it would be considered to be too light a sentence and inadequate. Therefore we must be objective.

A little while ago a judge imposed a community service sentence in a case in which people were convicted of unrest related offences. He was applauded in certain newspapers but having been approached by people on the other side of the political fence, I am aware of grave concern about too light sentences. Let us be objective and understand the position in which we find ourselves. The law is not an instrument to be used by politicians to further their own views. I am not saying that the hon member is doing so but let me sound a warning that that is not the purpose of the law.

*The hon member for Port Elizabeth North asked me where we stood and what we were going to do about the Heever Report. Let me tell the hon member that as a start we are including the Joubertina magisterial district in the area of jurisdiction of the South-Eastern Cape local division. We are going to do that. In regard to the question about whether there will be a local division at Pietersburg and George, in spite of the fact that the commission’s findings were opposed to it, I do not want the hon member to interpret this as a green light for people to start moving to Pietersburg and George. We support the recommendation that there should be no additional local division, but the establishment of a local division at Pietersburg and George may prove to be desirable in the future, however, in the light of the continual increase in the workload and the pressure of work experienced in these areas.

The creation of a local division at Pietersburg will also bring the Supreme Court closer to most of the self-governing territories. As a prerequisite for the establishment of these two local divisions, attorneys-generals’ offices will first be established. And then if the establishment of local circuit divisions in places where a need exists also seems to be desirable, this will be dealt with accordingly.

The recommendation that powers of appeal and review be granted to the local division, Durban and coast, on the same basis as the Wit-watersrand local division, is not supported by the Judge President of Natal, and the Government consequently does not intend to promote this.

In conclusion let me put it to hon members that there are several hon members who are still awaiting a reply. I think the hon member for Border is still waiting for a reply. He made a very valuable contribution in regard to a number of matters. With regard to emergency detainees, the fact is, of course, that we try to treat the prisoners in the same way as awaiting-trial prisoners, and in fact succeed in doing so. We provide them with medical treatment, food and clothing, and facilities for study, exercise, sport, legal visits, family visits and correspondence. If they are not satisfied, they are free to approach us, and they can also have recourse to the courts under given circumstances.

Then there is the whole question of deputy sheriffs. I have not yet implemented the Act. I have asked the respective organisations representing the deputy sheriffs and messengers of the court to advise me on the identification of magisterial districts in which large concentrations of Coloureds, Indians and Blacks are living and which could possibly be divided up further with a view to appointing more than one sheriff to a specific area. This includes the identification of the magisterial districts which, owing to their size, expansion and the consequent scope of the duties of deputy sheriffs and messengers of the court, could possibly be divided up further with a view to appointing more than one incumbent per magisterial district. These two associations have worked hard on this project in recent months and have indicated to me that they are now ready to furnish me with a report with a view to giving expression to the joint committee’s recommendation that as far as possible there be a redistribution of work to make it possible for members of other communities to obtain appointments too. Great strides have therefore been made with this, and before the end of June I shall probably be in a position to make more definite announcements about delimitation.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a very great privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate today, because in my full-time portfolio manpower and labour also play a very important role.

In the short time it has been my privilege to be associated with the Department of Manpower I have been impressed by the important work being done by this department, both in the economic sphere and in the social life of people.

I listened very attentively to the speeches made here, and arrived at the conclusion that they endorsed the contents of the annual report of this department, namely that things were going very well in that department. In this connection I should not only like to congratulate the Director-General, Adv Joel Fourie, on his appointment as Director-General of the department, but also thank him very sincerely, together with his personnel and his management, in the first place for the way in which they accepted me in that department, and in the second for the assistance they gave me.

In addition I do not think it is inappropriate to congratulate the former Director-General, Dr Piet van der Merwe, on his important appointment as chairman of the Commission for Administration. Nor do I think it inappropriate for me to express a few words of sincere appreciation here to the former hon Minister of Manpower. [Interjections.] I think that hon Minister managed this department, as he did his previous portfolios, with great competence.

Where is he now?

Let us withhold the questions, because the hon members sitting here all live in glass houses. [Interjections.] Beware of stones! Beware of stones! [Interjections.]

All?

Yes, all. That hon member is also sitting in a glass house. [Interjections.]

I think the hon the Minister will be remembered in particular, together with Dr Van der Merwe, for the positive contributions they made to job creation in this country. [Interjections.]

The issues of training and job creation echoed like a refrain throughout the debate. The hon members for Rust Ter Vaal, Chatsworth Central, Heideveld, Alberton, Bayview, Kuruman, Newcastle and Belhar all, to a greater or lesser extent, referred to training. Consequently it is a great pleasure for me to inform this Committee that we intend introducing a bursary scheme for the training of technicians, and particularly for technical training, because that is what prosperity is concerned with. [Interjections.]

I want to inform hon members about this briefly. The launching of a scheme with an annual intake of 200 pupil technicians is being envisaged. This means that there will be between 600 and 700 bursary holders in training as soon as the schemes is in full operation in three to four years’ time. Particular attention will be given to the training of technicians who are required for the processing of our country’s minerals. In that way we will place the accent on the creation of further job opportunities.

Talks have already been held with a representative of the technikons, who gave us the assurance that the technikons are able to accommodate these additional students. To this end the Department of Manpower will co-operate closely with the technikons and with the Department of Trade and Industry. The first intake will be made as soon as it is feasible to do so.

†A very important question on the minds of hon members is no doubt the monetary value of the bursaries and the conditions applicable thereto. The monetary value of the bursaries awarded by the Commission for Administration served as a guideline in the Department of Manpower’s recommendation that bursaries to the value of R5 000 per annum should be made available. This amount will enable pupil technicians to pay for their class fees, books, instruments, board and lodging and other miscellaneous expenses that go hand in hand with full-time studies.

This means that the cost to the State will amount to approximately R10 million over four years. Hon members will know that the training of technicians is done on a semester basis which means that the theoretical studies, lasting one semester per annum, are followed by practical training under the guidance of approved foster employers and the technikons concerned. Employers offering facilities to bursary holders have much to gain.

Not only will they get the benefit of the students’ services, but they are afforded an opportunity to recruit technicians at no cost whatsoever. I sincerely trust that the Departments of Manpower and of Trade and Industry will make this venture worthwhile. Needless to say, bursary holders will not be bound in any way, except to repay the bursary moneys paid out should they fail to complete their studies.

*Mr Chairman, it was a great pleasure for me to be able to make this announcement.

I shall try to refer briefly to all the speakers. In the first place I want to thank the hon member for Stilfontein very sincerely for his contribution here. I received very valuable assistance from him in his capacity as chairman of the study group, and I was also able to draw on his experience. I should like to thank him very much for that.

The hon member was in fact reacting to the hon member for Brakpan. He asked what the White workers had to be protected against.

The CP!

I shall come to that later.

I have known the hon member for Brakpan for 12 years. The two of us co-operated very closely when he became a member of Parliament. He is a person who has the ability to argue well. He was able to argue logically—at least he was able to do that when he was a Nationalist of course.

Today I want to ask the hon member whether he really believes in his heart of hearts that we should ever consider nullifying the trade union rights we have given to Black people. I am pleased the hon member prefers to keep quiet.

You know what is stated in our policy document!

Does the hon member really believe that we should go back and reintroduce job reservation—even if it is stated in the documents? [Interjections.]

Order! I must point out that when questions of this nature are put, it does not imply that hon members must reply to them immediately. As a matter of fact, that is not allowed under the Rules. However there are probably hon members of the hon member for Brakpan’s party who are going to reply to that in due course if they think it necessary. The hon the Acting Minister may proceed.

I ask in the form of a rhetorical question whether there is any person here who believes that we can ever turn back the clock to a time when we said to a certain section of the workers that they were not entitled to a trade union, and that they were not entitled to do certain work?

No one need reply to the question. It is clear that that phase in our history is gone forever. The hon member for Brakpan in truth said that we had had a successful year behind us. He referred to our annual report, and in that report all facets of the department’s activities are dealt with. These aspects, too, contributed in part to that successful year. Should we ever exchange success for conflict again? No, I am convinced that any reasonable person, in that party too, will agree with me. I give them the benefit of the doubt. They will agree with me that it is not feasible. I do not know of any fear-stricken worker. I do not know such a person! [Interjections.]

Let us consider the history of the White worker. He has behind him a history of training, expertise and reliability. Now those hon members must tell me why the White worker should be fear-stricken, except of course if they make him fearful. That, too, serves no purpose.

The hon member referred to the low percentage of incidents that were investigated in connection with occupational safety. I can tell that hon member—he also referred to it—that there is a shortage of manpower as far as these inspectors are concerned.

I can give the hon member the assurance, however, that all fatal cases were investigated and that in reality 238 prosecutions resulted from these investigations. The hon member is correct when he says that we should employ more people for that purpose. As hon members know we have a considerable number of vacancies in this connection.

While I am talking to the hon member for Brakpan, let me also refer to the hon member for Carletonville. That hon member advanced through the ranks of labour to where he is today, and I have respect for such a person even though I do not agree with him and even though I think he is unfair.

This is the first debate in which I had a chance to listen to his specialised knowledge, but I was very disappointed because the contribution he should have made he hid, as it were, under a bushel of petty politics. He devoted his entire speech to holidays, almost as though the White workers—whom he professed to be protecting— saw the future of this country in terms of having a holiday.

That hon member referred to Workers’ Day. Hon members will recall that we laid down that Workers’ Day would be the first Friday in May. After we had received further representations and applications in this connection we decided to make it the first Monday in May. The reason for this is that we should like to give recognition to the workers of South Africa and we do not begrudge them a long weekend.

If there are workers who in fact want the first day of May as Workers’ Day, they are free to negotiate the matter with their employers. Surely any reasonable person will say that it is to the greater convenience of our workers if we give them a day which also offers them a long weekend.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central also referred to this. May Day had its origin in Western industrialised countries as a form of protest against long working hours. The Russian revolution gave it the ideological meaning of a triumph of communism over capitalism. I do not think that we must politicise this issue any further, especially on account of the fact that even in communist Russia they are busy rethinking their economic ideologies.

*It worries me that the hon member for Carletonville does not have the interests of the worker at heart. If I consider what is happening in his constituency and bear in mind that approximately 380 people have already lost their work, including White workers …

After the election he will also be unemployed! [Interjections.]

… I have reason to be worried, not about the hon member, even though he may be unemployed after the election, but about those workers. Not only am I worried about the White workers, I am worried about all the workers, because all the workers of this country are necessary to make it a great country. Imagine the hon member saying that a firm which is dependent on Black support will simply have to move to the Black areas! Hon members of the CP support that view, because it fits in with their political ideology that Black people should disappear. The issue is in other words the presence of Black people.

Now I want to ask those hon members the following question. They say that the persons who are dependent on Blacks in order to do business should move out to the Black areas. I now ask the hon member as well as the party: Does that also apply to businesses that make use of Black labour? There is no reply. There cannot be a reply because what that party is supporting is an ill-considered thing. It is an ill-considered thing, because one cannot get away from the presence of Black people, no matter what one does.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister a question. I accept that the hon the Minister has finished replying to me now. Can he also reply to our question which I put to him? Is Workers’ Day going to fall on the first Monday in May next year and the year after?

The hon member knows precisely what the Government has decided.

†The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development referred to trade unions in agriculture. Allow me to say first of all that the reports that are brought out by the National Manpower Commission mostly serve as advice to the Minister and to the Government and are therefore not necessarily published. The question of labour unions in agriculture is an extremely delicate issue which must be handled with great circumspection if we are not going to dislocate agriculture and reduce its capacity to supply work to thousands of people.

Mindful of the fact that all hon members of all three Houses of Parliament are concerned about this matter—I include myself in their number— we set up a working group consisting of organised agriculture on the one hand and interested MPs from the Houses concerned on the other, with the Department of Manpower as an honest broker. I invite any hon member wanting to make a contribution to do so before this particular working group. In this regard I can say that there is a lot of goodwill and that steady progress has already been made.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central wisely sounded a word of warning. He warned us to be careful because although unions may be viable in the case of a big agricultural concern, however, in other cases they may prove to be impracticable.

*It is a complicated matter, because it is an enormous industry which extends over a large geographic area and is tremendously divergent. In this industry we are dealing with grain, vegetables, livestock, timber and many other products, and that makes it complicated. [Interjections.] In addition some units are large and others small. In addition, as a result of natural conditions there is great instability in that industry, which makes it very difficult to act prescrip-tively. A further point—in my opinion it is economically the most important one—is that agriculture is the most unremunerative industry in which one can invest. That is why I am still poor today.

Tell that to the workers.

Politically poor?

Fortunately not politically. This is an important point and organised agriculture realises and recognises this. I tried to read widely on this subject, and I could find no country in the world which could serve as a good example of trade unions in agriculture. If any hon member has any knowledge which I do not have, I invite him to participate again in this debate so that I can hear about it.

Someone here said that Cosatu was organising it. I must honestly say that Cosatu does in fact have the right to do so, but I predict that they are going to have many problems with it. It is in fact possible—such organisations already exist—to establish an employees’ organisation in certain large farming enterprises in which thousands of people are employed. A large farming enterprise, in terms of South Africa, would be a person with 500 to 1 000 people in his employ. But what does a trade union with only 500 members mean? It is therefore not such an easy problem. If it was merely a question of changing a law, we would have been able to do so.

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that it was not fair to associate farm labour with slavery because there are farmers among the White, Coloured, Indian and Black people, of whom the vast majority take good care of their workers in agriculture. I concede that there are of course exceptions to the rule. He referred inter alia to a farmer who had assaulted his employee. [Interjections.] Of course that is wrong. Since our labour laws do not make provision for that, our ordinary laws make provision for it. I find that our courts are willing to take action in those cases.

†The hon the Deputy Minister also referred to the technical college in Bellville and to Sastri College. That however is not a matter for the Department of Manpower as these are educational matters which are own affairs. However, the department would have no problem whatsoever if one technical college made an arrangement with another. We have no problem as far as that is concerned.

I have already referred to—the hon member for Springfield mentioned this matter—workers in the agricultural sector. He also referred to conflicting rulings of the Industrial Court. I cannot really comment on that as these are administrative courts and are not bound by their decisions. The Department of Manpower did, during 1988, amend the Labour Relations Act by defining an unfair labour practice more widely, making it easier for courts to give a decision in line with previous decisions. Another very important factor in the uniformity of decisions is the fact that from now on people have the right of appeal. A decision can now be appealed against.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central, to whom I have already referred, sounded a word of caution on trade unions in the agricultural sector.

*Then there is the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal. He said South Africa was a country of hope, with a bright future. I am pleased that he is so optimistic—he is not a Louw for nothing! [Interjections.] He also referred to forestry and to workers in the forestry industry, who only receive their wages every five weeks. This is a matter which he would do well to take up with the Department of Forestry as the employer in that connection.

Then he also referred to the position that employers and employees were now negotiating with one another and were bargaining as it were, which is different to what is stated in the Labour Relations Act. The hon member for Durban Central also referred to that point. Now I want to tell the hon members that our labour legislation is based on collective bargaining and negotiation. Consequently it is no problem to us if parties were to negotiate and say that they did not want the provisions of the laws to be applicable to them. I have no problem whatsoever with that, and the parties may do so.

The hon member also referred to discrimination in employment, so too did the hon member for Alberton and the hon member for Stilfontein. As far as the department is concerned, there is no discrimination whatsoever as far as placement services are concerned. The definition of an unfair labour practice—hon members will also know this—was expanded to include unfair discrimination by employers.

†The hon member for Durban Central pleaded that under section 17(11)(a) we must revert to the norm for that court as being “unlawfulness” and not “unfairness.” The Industrial Court is a court of equity and it must ask itself what is fair and what is unfair. That is the reason why the norm of unlawfulness has been left out. I will, however, say that this is the beginning of a phase and the hon member and anybody else can of course make recommendations from time to time to the department. We will see how this works.

The hon member also asked that the onus of proof be placed on the person alleging. In this particular instance the onus of proof is only passed on when it is an unlawful action. I think if we do not place this onus on the person accused of unlawfulness, it will be a technical impossibility to prove a case. The hon member also referred to the second generation agreements. I have already dealt with that.

*The hon member for Alberton referred to productivity and management. These are two very important matters which are very closely interrelated. I want to concede that the hon member is correct that productivity is a cold, measurable element as far as the achievements of workers are concerned. That is why it is very important to promote productivity by means of good management.

Good management takes the position of the worker as a human being into consideration. The worker is a human being who also has other needs besides that of a job. I think that if we can bring home this message and can effect an improvement in this regard we shall make great and rapid progress as far as the productivity of labour is concerned.

The hon member for Newcastle said that our labour force should not be politicised. I am in full agreement with him. Even in Cosatu, where they are trying to do this, there is polarisation between groups, namely the “workerists” and the “charterists”, because they are politicising labour.

The hon member for Sasolburg made a plea for small employers. I agree with him completely. It is important that these people’s interests should be well looked after, because they will in future be the large job creators. If we are to have labour peace it is important for us to look after the interests of those people, that they should know precisely what they must do in connection with their employees and that they must be well informed.

The hon member for Springbok asked me to tell him how many people of colour were working in this department in the administrative personnel. There are 99 of them, and most of them are in reality members of the administrative personnel. He also referred to the remuneration payable to training groups.

In connection with the remuneration with which these people who are receiving training are provided, I just want to say that no subsidies are paid to them, but they receive rebates which make provision for them to pay less income tax. I shall write the hon member a letter in connection with the Coloured apprentices in Alexander Bay.

The hon member for Belhar asked for greater involvement on the part of the Government in the disputes between employers and employees. I want to tell the hon member that that is not our policy. The policy of the Government is the reverse, namely to have as little involvement as possible in the disputes between employers and employees.

†The hon member for Bayview referred to an oversupply of people educated in non-vocational areas. He referred to people with university degrees which they have attained after many years of study who cannot do anything with those qualifications. I agree that education and training must be purposeful. This reminds me of the words of Shakespeare who wrote: “You have been to a feast of learning and you have stolen the scraps.” I thank the hon member for his contribution.

*Last but not least, I come to the hon member for Heideveld. The hon member had a few words to say about his church leader, Dr Alan Boesak. I am in full agreement with him that a person who makes the kind of statements Dr Boesak makes is not a friend of the South African worker.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister devoted a great deal of attention to the question of the farmworkers. I think the hon the Minister said at one point that there were large farms on which there were up to as many as 500 workers, but that one could not base a union on 500 people. I agree with him that one cannot base a union on only 500 people, but there are, in fact, cases in which it is difficult for one to distinguish the farm from the industry. I am thinking, for example, of tea plantations and large forestry industries. I think that it is natural for the trade unions to consider the cost advantages. They cannot go and organise a farm of 20 or 30 people, one of the reasons being that they cannot afford to send people out. Nevertheless I want to say that even if there is no example of this being done on an organised basis anywhere in the world, or no appropriate legislation exists, I still think one should allow this to take its natural course. I am referring very specifically to a tea plantation in Natal which Cosatu did, in fact, organise well. Unfortunately, if there are problems when one is in a negotiating situation …

Order! The hon member may not stand there talking.

If one is in a negotiating situation, those employers hide behind the legislation and say that the employees themselves may not organise themselves. They even make use of the security mechanisms, call in the Police etc. And there have been fairly ugly incidents of people being summarily kicked out of their homes and having to stand out in the street. I think one must allow the situation to take its natural course and see what develops.

I should like to touch on two other matters. The one involves labour relations in the public sector and the other relates more generally to the utilisation of manpower. About three or four years ago, when the large trade unions came into existence, employees in the private sector were generally quite keen to retain their privileged position. And a not involuntary alliance arose between the State and the private sector so that they could do a spot of union-bashing.

I was involved in one such union-bashing war in Howick, about four years ago, which, it so happens, ultimately contributed to the entire unrest situation in Natal. Eventually about 800 people lost their jobs and at that stage it was merely a question of union-bashing.

I am glad to say that by and large the war is now over in the private sector and that both management and the large trade unions are evidencing much more restraint. I think that they are also acting with much more maturity after the learning process of the past few years. I am afraid one cannot say the same of the public sector. There is still a reluctance which is mainly hidden behind so-called strategic considerations. One would have expected the awareness amongst workers, which has increased in the private sector to spill over naturally into the public sector, because the workers live together in the same areas and do, after all, communicate with one another. There is also a fair amount of cross-pollination, because people work in the public sector and then move to the private sector.

During the past few years I have also been involved, on quite a number of occasions, in cases of the large trade unions having moved into the private sector. I think the public sector does not have anywhere near the level of experience the private sector has in dealing with this. I am referring, for example, to the whole question of the Pelonomi Hospital at Bloemfontein. I think that in this case the SATS learned a few lessons very quickly.

Quite recently in the Natal Provincial Administration there was a strike by workers who belonged to a trade union connected with Cosatu. When a dispute arose, the Provincial Administration urged that they were not allowed to talk to the trade unions, because they had their own staff associations, which use completely different methods.

The problem, of course, is that existing staff relations in the Provincial Administrations—I am only familiar with the situation in Natal, but I do not think it would be much better in the other provinces—are based on the fact that they can negotiate with small committees about matters that take place in the work-place itself, but there is no way that collective bargaining can take place with regard to such matters as permanent posts, pension benefits, discharge procedures, etc.

What happened there was that certain workplaces were very well-organised. For example, one found that at hospitals there was complete affiliation to a union. Since only a percentage of the total work-force of the Administration belonged to the union, they said that we were not allowed to talk to the union. They would not recognise us, since the majority of the workers did not belong to the union. This resulted in quite a nasty business. Eventually one Sunday afternoon I had to intervene and it was possible to defuse the situation. After it had been defused, it was very clear that no procedures existed for the Administration itself to co-operate with the people at the various work-places.

I therefore want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister what the department is doing to ensure that the public sector’s personnel officers are also taught something about labour relations procedures. I do not think we will be able to prevent what happened in the private sector from taking place in the public sector as well.

†The second point has to do with manpower utilisation. The way in which we normally deal with the question of unemployment of a structural nature is by saying that more jobs should be created. I would suggest that the normal way in which one deals with unemployment as simply a trade-off between unemployment and inflation, is not really job creation, but manipulation. There is nothing creative about it. One just pulls the levers this way and there is inflation, and then one pulls the lever the other way and there is more employment. I therefore do not think that this falls within the area of job creation.

Every time that our economy gets going, skills always reach a ceiling and then inefficiency sets in, inflation gets pushed up and this obviously reduces competitiveness. If workers are not able to work smarter because of lack of training or the ratio of skilled to unskilled people, perhaps we should start looking at working a bit harder in South Africa. That implies that we must reduce the ratio of capital costs to labour, and that of management to labour. In other words, what we have—be it capital or management—will have to be utilised in a better way in order to employ more labour.

Unfortunately the whole taxation structure makes this difficult, because it always favours the person who wants to add to his factory or who wants to duplicate rather than share jobs. I think we should begin to look more at double shifts and the potential that lies therein. We have to make better use of capital and also managerial skills. One could have one managerial staff overseeing two shifts of workers at virtually no increase in managerial costs. By the same token one could have two workers using the same lathe instead of two lathes. There is no incentive whatsoever for a person who wants a double shift system. I think one should carefully look at the taxation policies with a view to making better use of our capital infrastructure as already invested. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I first want to thank the hon the Acting Minister for the announcement which he made this afternoon about this scheme and especially about training for technicians. It is encouraging that the purse will cover other costs too.

When manpower is the subject for discussion, one is speaking about people. That is why I want to start by congratulating the hon the Acting Minister on his appointment to this very important post. I also want to thank the Director-General and his staff for their service to the Republic of South Africa. These people are in the service of the entire country and not only in that of certain White people.

I cannot omit to thank the former Director-General, Dr Piet van der Merwe, for the service which he furnished South Africa during his term at the Department of Manpower. In the four years that I was involved in that joint committee, I got to know Dr Piet van der Merwe as a person who was intensely concerned about the interests of the worker.

This brings me to the former hon Minister of Manpower. The hon member for Carletonville asked yesterday where the hon Minister was who had run away. I want to tell him that I served on the joint committee with that hon Minister for four years and he is a man of whom South Africa may be proud for what he meant to the workers of South Africa.

I want to make something very clear to the hon member for Carletonville right now. He made a great fuss here yesterday as if he were the great White hope of White workers. He would do better immediately to shed that arrogance with which he stood here and insulted Brown and Black workers of South Africa. The type of attitude which he exhibited here bodes no good for the people of South Africa.

He said that trade unions should not be politicised. I want to tell the hon member that he and his White Mineworkers’ Union are the very ones who have politicised the working people of this country. As a result of his political activities among miners, he is a member of this Parliament today. He used politics to enter Parliament and then he has the audacity to say that other people should not do this. The very people who were trampled underfoot years ago by him, together with his White mine-workers, are the people who are coming to the fore today. They are the people with whom we intend co-operating today. They are the people with whom South Africa will co-operate. I want to tell that hon member today that, in consequence of what he is doing to South Africa, the very people whom he supposedly protects—which he makes such a fuss about here—will kick him out of this very Parliament.

Much has been said here and I want to quote a short passage from a speech by the hon member for Stilfontein (Hansard, 7 August 1987, col 3278):

But now comes the crux of what he said and, coming from a Nationalist, it is proof that he is aware of the situation in the country:

This is the status quo which those people want to restore. The hon member for Carletonville and his people want to return to the days when Black and Brown trade unions were unregistered. The hon member can forget about that because it is no longer the case. I shall quote further:

I want to say that much has been said about farmworkers over the past two days. I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister that there are many problems on farms. I want to request, however, that we hold back on this point a little at this stage. I know why I am requesting this. We are in the process of tackling this very sensitive point about farmworkers in South Africa within the cadre of manpower and agriculture, together with the SA Agricultural Union and other people. A meeting is soon to be held at which we as a working group can discuss the position of farmworkers again.

I want to say that I was the first person to discuss the position of farmworkers in this Parliament. That day the hon the State President stayed to the end while I was making my speech and he told me afterwards that I had raised a very important point. He also said that there was one matter I had not mentioned, that is the position of the Rural Foundation on farms. Since that day I have taken the trouble to contact the Rural Foundation and to be informed on what they are doing for farmworkers.

A great deal of fuss is made here by people like the hon member for Carletonville, who rose yesterday afternoon for instance and quite arrogantly said that it was the second time that he had said that other people still had to learn what he had forgotten about trade unionism. I want to tell the hon member that what he knows about trade unionism is only what he learnt on the mines. Today there are hon members of the House sitting here who know more about trade unionism and other facets of working conditions than that hon member does. He should therefore not come to insult people here by saying that other people still have to learn what he has forgotten.

I can offer myself as an example. When I was a young apprentice, I became involved in trade unionism. The hon member is welcome to sit and look at me but I am telling him that he knows nothing about the building industry. He still has to learn the same amount about the building industry as I have already forgotten. I do not know much about the mining industry but the hon member does not know much about the building industry either.

What do you say to that, Arrie?

I am speechless! [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon member spoke about holidays and he more or less insulted the other race groups by saying that, because people of colour had already decided that Workers’ Day should always fall on the same specific day, White people had to fall in with that. I want to ask the hon member what they did regarding all the other days? As a minority in the Mineworkers’ Union, they took all the decisions over the years and the Black and Brown workers were trodden underfoot. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I consider it a privilege to be able to participate in the debate on the Manpower Vote this afternoon. Permit me at this stage, however, as various hon members on both sides of the House have already expressed congratulations and thanks to senior officials of the department, also to convey the congratulations and thanks of the CP to all officials of the Department of Manpower who were promoted over the past year.

It frequently happens that thanks and congratulations are confined to senior officials and that the general run of officials, those who do not rate a mention in annual reports, are overlooked. Our sincere thanks to them for the great task which they carry out quietly.

If one looks at the department’s excellent annual report, one is immediately struck by the broad field covered by this department. The department is responsible for the administration of eight Acts, that is the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Wage Act, the Labour Relations Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Manpower Training Act, the Guidance and Placement Act, the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

One has to add the practical activities of various statutory institutions, such as inter alia the Industrial Court, the National Manpower Commission, the Unemployment Insurance Board, the Wage Board, exemption boards, the Religious Objection Board, the Office of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, the Office of the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner and numerous others.

Nearly all these institutions went to great lengths to report on the activities of the past year. I find it a great pity that all these activities are discussed here within the limits of a few hours in an extended public committee by only a portion of Parliament. I accept that it may be more convenient for the hon the Minister to have only one debate regarding his Vote and not to deal with it separately in the three Houses. I believe that at the end of the day the activities of the Department of Manpower definitely suffer as a result of this. This is the case because Parliament is divided into three extended public committees every day, which discuss different Votes only once. Yesterday, for instance, the Department of Manpower, the Bureau for Information and the SABC, and the Department of Education and Development Aid were discussed simultaneously.

In the first case, we are left at the end of the day with an uninformed Parliament because numerous hon members of Parliament and of this Committee would have liked to be informed of events and activities in the other Committees and vice versa.

Secondly, it is considerably more difficult for the media to report fully to the public regarding such a comprehensive department as Manpower, for example. On the same day an account also has to be given of the activities of other departments which are discussed in extended public committees. The eventual consequence of this is also a less informed public and public opinion regarding the activities of the Department of Manpower, which can only have an adverse effect on the department.

In its Programme of Principles and Policy, the CP states its standpoint regarding the labour sphere very clearly in point 11:

In last year’s debate, arising from this, I put forward the standpoint that the CP was not ashamed, neither did it hesitate to say that in its approach to labour it considered the interests of the White worker first. This approach should obviously be seen in the light of the CP’s broader social and constitutional approach to the problems of South Africa—a broader approach which is in direct contrast to the NP approach to, and obsession with, an undivided unitary state in which responsibility is accepted for everybody, and their obsession with the idea of integration.

The hon the Minister came up with the standpoint here this afternoon that the White worker in the NP’s unitary state did not need any protection because he had skill as a result of training to back him up and to protect him. When the Government gets to its constitutional solutions, however, the skill which is to back up the White is apparently inadequate to protect and support him in the Government’s unitary state. Constitutional ploys and tricks also have to be used then, ostensibly to protect the White.

Last year, when I advocated this standpoint as the CP point of departure, the hon member for Benoni reacted to this by saying that it was a racist approach. There was a time, not too long ago, when the NP was known inter alia as a party which stood for the interests of the White worker and was the ally of the White worker. The NP has obviously become too sophisticated, however, to safeguard the interests of the White worker and the struggle of the White worker has apparently become an embarrassment to it now. [Interjections.] When the hon member for Brak-pan pleaded the cause of the White worker here yesterday, the hon member for Kuruman—an NP frontbencher—burst out laughing. The NP obviously assumes that it can manage without the support of the White worker.

The chief spokesman on Manpower for the NP, the hon member for Stilfontein, is unfortunately not in the House at present. I request that they let him know because he is possibly not here. In his speech yesterday he confirmed this NP approach. He referred in a superior, derogatory and sarcastic way to a report which appeared in Die Transvaler, in which White workers explained their desperate position. He stated that in a recent report on the price of bread the following was said:

[Interjections.]

The hon member for Stilfontein then said the following in an exceptionally sarcastic way:

This contemptuous and unsympathetic attitude toward the White worker comes as a shock. After these sarcastic and unsympathetic statements, the hon member for Stilfontein challenged people like a gladiator of old to stand against him in Stilfontein. If one takes into account that the majority of voters in Stilfontein are ordinary White workers, I must tell hon members in all honesty that the hon member for Stilfontein is an exceptionally brave man. He is an exceptionally brave man! [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I should like to dwell for a moment on the matter of strikes and work stoppages. It is true that there has been a decrease of 12% regarding strikes and work stoppages over the past year. We are grateful for this but it should be borne in mind that the most important reason is that no strike of the magnitude of the 1987 miners’ strike occurred during 1988. In spite of this, however, there is still an increase of 914,8% regarding strikes and work stoppages compared with the position in 1979, before the Government started using this approach.

Cosatu’s objectives and approach are clear, that is a strategy to draw as many trade unions as possible under the Cosatu umbrella. It strikes one that registered trade unions increased from 173 to 209 from 1976 to 1988, an increase of 20,8%. Nevertheless it is more striking that the membership of registered trade unions increased from 673 000 to 2 084 000 over the same period—a rise of 309%. While radicals denigrate the Government’s reform plans as cosmetic in general and want no part of them, it is remarkable that they welcome this reform in the sphere of labour with open arms and participate in it. This is the reason for their standpoint that they have obtained an instrument of power through this to realise their long-term political objectives as well by being able to cripple the South African economy if necessary. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have very little time, but I just want to comment on what the hon member for Randfontein said in respect of job reservation. I want to give the hon the Minister my full support here, because this must now come to an end. We cannot carry on with this kind of thing. This protection the hon member is asking for, has already saddled this country with many problems. And that hon member is honestly asking for job reservation at this time, in this day and age.

I wonder where that hon member was in 1980 when the former Minister, Mr Fanie Botha, started this programme Workers 2000 campaign. Where was he? It is just a pity that this campaign came too late. It should have started ten years earlier, while the matter was still on the boil. A start was made on this campaign in 1980. If this campaign had not been launched by Mr Fanie Botha at the time, I am sure that South Africa would have had greater problems today.

The hon member mentioned strikes. He himself said they had definitely decreased.

Yesterday the hon member again asked for protection for the Whites. Who suffered throughout the years when there was job reservation wherever one went? At that stage, irrespective of one’s qualifications, colour was the criterion. This was where the saying “My only sin is the colour of my skin” came from. The hon member, coming along as he does with his job reservation, wants us to sing even louder: “The only sin is the colour of my skin.” When one applied for a post, and they saw the colour of one’s skin, they said: “Sorry, there is no job for you.”

Here I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister with regard to the White worker. He used the opportunity to provide training, and in this way was able to get a head start. This is why I want to give my full support to other hon members who have asked for training here. It is absolutely vital when it comes to bringing peace to the workers in South Africa.

†I want to turn to one point with regard to Cosatu. What really caused this to happen? I want to follow the hon member for Belhar, who pointed out that Blacks are using the union movement as a political weapon. They are using this as a political weapon, because Blacks have no other platform. As a result, one finds that they will use these organisations to mobilise and motivate the people. Let us look back over the years at what happened when we had Fosatu. Fosatu disappeared because it became too soft and did not actually want to take a hard line. After Fosatu came Cosatu. First there was the federation, and then came Cosatu. As a result, Cosatu mobilised the workers and also requested total disinvestment. That is all because of job reservation and the apartheid structures which came about. That is why Black workers are aiding and abetting disinvestment. Even those people who are perhaps not so inclined to support it do so, because otherwise they are branded allies of Pik Botha and Margaret Thatcher and they stand to lose their credibility.

The Government must be complimented for introducing the structures we have now—the reconciliation board, the labour relations court, etc. All these things have contributed to bringing peace to the worker. However, the hon the Acting Minister should not be soft on the things for which the hon members for Carletonville and Randfontein are asking, such as job reservation. I am glad the hon the Minister has put his foot down. It is goodbye. It is a forgotten chapter. It is buried. Never will we go back to job reservation. We go forward to march towards a new South Africa.

I appeal to the White voters to think twice if they intend to follow the CP and ask for job reservation. I return to Mr Arrie Paulus.

Order! The hon member must refer to other hon members by their constituencies.

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman. I still remember the time years ago when the hon member for Carletonville was one of the fighters for the mineworkers. However, I was surprised yesterday. He is no longer the same person because all these structures have pulled the carpet from under his feet. He has become merely a glorified complaints officer. Where are the days when he used to stand up and keep the Black mineworkers underfoot? Gone are those days! Even his objection to blasting certificates is a thing of the past. [Interjections.]

Irrespective of whether they are going to make a dispute of the sharing of ablution facilities, pension facilities or medical aid, the CP will have to accept the fact that South Africa is moving in a different direction and that they cannot cling to the old order or put the clock back. [Interjections.]

If the CP should ever cling to the concept of job reservation, I am glad the hon member for Carletonville said the following in Daily Dispatch:

These are job opportunities. This improves the workers’ situation and even provides promotion opportunities for those people that were kept at that level for all those years.

I want to ask the CP—I think it is useless asking them because their minds are bent on what they intend to do—to rethink this matter and to realise that it is more important for us to include the Blacks in a new dispensation in order at least to ensure peace as far as that is concerned.

I want to turn to the National Occupational Safety Association, Nosa. I am aware of the fact that Nosa is doing very valuable work as far as the protection of the safety and health of people at their work-place is concerned. However, there are places where this particular practice is not being carried out as it ought to be, and they are hostels and other Government institutions. Quite a large complement of people work at these places and in my opinion they should also be given the opportunity to listen to lectures by Nosa officials. More people should be appointed to work in the hostels.

Mr Chairman …

Another one who will not be coming back! [Interjections.]

Order! This is not prediction time. The hon member for Maraisburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I do not not take much notice of those predictions. I have been hearing them election after election and not one of them has come true. I should like an opportunity of hazarding a prediction myself, however. Perhaps I had better do it now. I bid farewell to the hon member for Krugersdorp.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I also bid farewell to the hon member for Carletonville. I want to tell the hon member for Randfontein that he is skating on thin ice too.

He is even bidding his own colleagues farewell!

I take pleasure in following on the hon member for Bishop Lavis. I shall link up with the hon member in the course of my speech in the sense that I also want to discuss training. I want to tell the hon member for Carletonville that I am referring to training for all the inhabitants of South Africa. This includes the Whites.

In the first place, I want to congratulate Adv Fourie on his appointment as Director-General of the Department of Manpower. As I know him, I do not have the least doubt in my mind that he will fill this very important post with dignity. I also congratulate the staff of the department on a very successful year and a very well-compiled annual report in which the activities of the department for the year ending 31 December are reported.

The annual report of the National Manpower Commission is also praiseworthy. I should like to emphasise what the hon member for Kuruman quoted from the report yesterday. He said:

This is a splendid achievement. It indicates that the training programmes which were introduced when unemployment was at its peak in this country are starting to bear fruit.

In spite of this improvement, the long-term productivity performance of South Africa is not capable of favourable comparison with that of its most important trading partners. It also remains disturbing that improvement in productivity in the RSA is not keeping pace with wage rises and that the unit labour costs in manufacturing in the RSA are still rising appreciably faster than in the USA, West Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan. In all these countries the unit labour costs have levelled off since 1982 whereas they have risen sharply in South Africa since the beginning of the eighties.

Training remains the most important weapon in the fight against declining productivity. South Africa will not be able to remain competitive in African markets if there is not a marked improvement in the unit labour costs of its manufacturing industry.

In terms of the Manpower Training Act of 1981 the Department of Manpower is responsible for the promotion of training and the maintenance of training standards. During 1987-88 the Department of Manpower spent approximately 50% of its budget on training and related actions. This is certainly an achievement.

During 1985 the HSRC and the NTB published the findings of an inquiry into the training of artisans in the RSA. The Government accepted the majority of recommendations which were made. Arising from the inquiry and the recommendations of the HSRC, draft legislation on manpower training was published in the Gazette of 26 February 1988 for general information and comment. The amendments which are envisaged particularly affect the existing administrative functions which the Department of Manpower carries out in respect of training. Administrative functions which have been carried out by the Department of Manpower in respect of training will be transferred to industrial training boards in future which will control and manage their own training.

A system of competency-based modular training and evaluation by accredited training institutions is envisaged to replace the present norm-based evaluation system. Competency-based modular training may be regarded as tuition technology which strives to evaluate human achievement in the light of specific criteria or standards which therefore deviate from the norm-based evaluation system which evaluates human achievement in the light of a distribution curve. Competencybased modular training programmes make it possible for all learners who are selected for the course to pass it as the results are based on the number of competency objectives which are mastered.

Industrial training boards are being put into operation at present and quite a number of constitutions have already been approved. The development in this sphere may be regarded as an important step in the deregulation of training in the RSA. Every industry will now be able to develop a training system which will supply the needs of that industry.

Since 1984 there has been a declining tendency in applications from apprentices and, coinciding with the moderate upswing in the economy which took place in 1988, there was a surmise that the declining tendency would be stemmed. This did not occur, however, and the number of new applications has decreased from 8 185 in 1987 to 7 919 in 1988, as the hon member for Kuruman has already said. This decrease in the number of apprentices will have an adverse effect on the availability of artisans in future. Obviously fewer people will attain the artisan status.

In 1988 the number of people who attained artisan status was almost 20% lower than in 1987 and 34% lower than in 1985. Because the training of apprentices takes place in a cycle of a few years, the influence of the decrease in new applications or in the attainment of artisan status will continue for some years yet, even if there were to be an immediate increase in the number of applications. This new approach to the training of artisans will result in an apprentice no longer attaining artisan status automatically on the expiry of a study contract.

Against this, the newly proposed system of competency-based modular training holds other exciting prospects. I believe that everyone who has to do with the training of artisans looks forward to the Manpower Training Amendment Bill. I believe that the envisaged system of competency-based modular training will be a great improvement on the existing system of training for apprentices.

At present there are various undertakings which specialise in the repair of components, especially in the motor vehicle industry. In this way there is specialisation in the repair to brakes, exhaust systems, cooling systems, gearboxes, equalisers and even engines. In fact, these undertakings concentrate on competency-based modular repairs. All indications are that there will be still more specialisation in the industry in future.

The problem which I see is that no provision is made for the attainment of a qualification for the largely self-trained employees in this industry. I want to ask the Manpower Commission to examine this aspect and, if possible, also provide within the new system of training and evaluation that such workers may attain a specific meaningful qualification. Currently only the trade of motor mechanic is recognised, whereas there are many capable workers in the motor repair industry who are actually specialists in their own right but who cannot attain any recognised qualification in acknowledgement of their competence.

I believe that many young men, who could become artisans in their own right, are lost to the motor industry because they do not have the ability or the opportunity to be trained as mechanics while they are completely capable, for instance, of learning to repair automatic gearboxes, equalisers and brake systems in a competency-based modular tuition programme. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to associate myself with earlier speakers in welcoming the hon the Acting Minister and Advocate Fourie to this portfolio. We wish them well in their new positions. I would also like to avail myself of this opportunity of commending the outgoing Director-General, Dr Van der Merwe. He was a man reputed to have great skills and talents and who was also a very skilful negotiator.

I would like to express some concern about the high rate of unemployment in South Africa. The dole queues of not only the unskilled but also the skilled and semi-skilled workforce continue to grow longer. I am tempted to allude to a Tory election campaign poster of some years ago which proclaimed against a background of a dole queue that “Labour is not working”. I wonder if that should not apply here as well.

To create a massive boost to the alleviation of poverty, I believe the department should focus on the labour-intensive programmes of potentially employable jobless people, especially in the skilled and semi-skilled categories. In Natal, for instance, there is a reservoir of skilled labour in the townships of Chatsworth and Phoenix where a survey by Sanlam many years ago revealed the gravity of the unemployment problem there.

There is a dearth of industrial activity in the neighbouring areas of Phoenix, places like Ver-ulam and Tongaat, which besides Durban are the two major towns abutting Phoenix. The reluctance of businessmen to establish industries in this area is due to attractive offers in other areas. An area which is well endowed with railway sidings, road networks and access to the biggest and busiest harbour in Africa has been sadly neglected, all because there is no Government incentive for the private sector to establish a growth point in the axis between Verulam and Tongaat.

The Ministry’s propensity for short-term planning overlooks the long-term effects of its growth policies. Because of the shift in the emphasis of growth from areas like Verulam, Tongaat and New Germany, where I gather industrial activity is showing no growth because of a gravitation of business to Pietermaritzburg, a vacuum has been created which nobody wants to fill. I would like to urge the hon the Acting Minister to give priority to the creation of growth points which the hon the State President initiated with his Carlton and Good Hope conferences. Furthermore I would like to appeal to him to prevail upon local authorities to intensify their deregulation programmes in order to encourage cottage industries to function with much less hinderance. I believe that the people in the informal sector are playing a valuable role in improving the overall well-being of the deprived communities and that they should be encouraged to do so.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to thank the hon the Minister and the Director-General who have retired. They did valuable work for us and we are pleased that we could have had them in these positions at certain times. It is also a pleasure for me to convey my sincere congratulations to the people appointed to these positions, not only Adv Fourie, but also the others who succeeded him, on the fine task they have to do and which we know they will perform thoroughly and diligently. I also wish to congratulate the hon the Acting Minister of Manpower on the period during which he has acted as Minister and to thank him for the things he has done. I also want to convey my thanks for these bursaries that he has established. In the past it was always the employers who had to provide these bursaries, and who then bound these people to them for certain periods. The employers could allow only a certain number, but these additional bursaries will provide great relief in our country.

Today I want to talk about the work done by the Chief Directorate Manpower Planning. In 1988 they had R108 million which they spent very productively on training in various disciplines. They established the manpower training committees, inter alia, consisting of a chairman and an equal number of members of employers and employees. These committees are appointed by the National Training Board. The activities of the committee include the designation and definition of trades, prescribing conditions of apprenticeship, dealing with applications for apprenticeship and to some extent also selection in this regard. They supervise the training of apprentices with regard to practical and theoretical training and also consider the suspension of apprentices when they do not comply with the requirements. They investigate and settle disputes between employers and apprentices. They consider apprentices’ contracts as well as transfers to other apprenticeships and reduced periods of apprenticeship.

This committee does a lot of good work, but I want to ask the hon the Minister whether there is some possibility of giving them an additional task as well, viz to increase an artisan’s productivity in the work situation once he has been trained.

I want to ask whether one cannot consider the possibility of upgrading artisans’ work. When numbers decrease, they will also be able to do high-level work in that people who can perform certain tasks which require less training and fewer skills can serve as supports for them. We want to request that the artisans’ work be assigned in such a way that the support personnel can assist them.

I should like to give hon members the example of the workshops of the Pretoria City Council where support persons were given to the motor mechanics. The support personnel do certain work, such as taking out the vehicle’s engine, so that the artisan can immediately begin doing the kind of work he has to do with regard to the engine. This also had an influence on the size of the fleet of vehicles that Pretoria needed. The machinery they have to take care of is very expensive. This also resulted in significantly reducing the period in which the machine was off the road.

There are other cases too, for example that of the engineer who has engineering assistants, technicians and technologists who assist him. Since they have had that assistance, the engineers have become much more productive.

I should like to request, therefore, that we consider giving these tasks either to the Manpower Training Committee or to another committee in the department which can do such work so as to enhance the artisans’ productivity and usefulness.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to speak after the hon member for Koedoespoort. The hon member proved here this afternoon that he is very interested in the workers of South Africa and especially in productivity. I agree with the hon member.

Years ago when I entered the building industry, we also had the operator system. The artisan, the bricklayer, the carpenter and the plumber were saved a great deal of time with regard to that kind of manual. I should like to agree with the hon member for Koedoespoort that we should consider that kind of assistance again.

I do not want to say anything more to the hon member for Carletonville today. I think we have said enough about the matter already. I merely want to say that I am convinced—I think the vast majority of Whites in South Africa are also convinced of this—that there is no room for a conservative government in this country. It is essential that all of us in South Africa put our shoulders to the wheel, whether we are Coloured, White, Black or Asian.

There is no room for a Conservative Party government.

No, definitely not, not in this country. Every worker in South Africa has a duty to put South Africa first and that is why it is very important to me that I agree with the hon member for Kuruman. He said that for too long people had been hiding behind various pieces of legislation that excluded professional Asians, Coloureds and Blacks from work that was traditionally done by Whites. What happened? Hon members know the whole story. I was an artisan myself. One is prevented from doing certain work so that one cannot receive payment for it. While other people do the work, the Whites sit on the other side drinking coffee in the little shed on the site. We call it the shed. The Coloured man has to do the work, but the White man gets the money because he is protected by law.

One may not hold a hammer in one’s hand, because if the building inspector or someone who knows the building industry exceptionally well arrives, the Coloured man has to climb off the scaffold. He is suddenly sent away. That is nonsense. Who erected this building that hon members are sitting in today? I am sure that the majority of the artisans who worked here were Coloured people. The hands that erected this building were Coloured hands. We therefore want to tell the Whites in South Africa that we are prepared to compete with them on every platform. We do not want favours.

The hon the Acting Minister spoke about training this afternoon. I want to see Coloured people receiving that training. It must not be said that a Coloured or a Black man must receive a watered-down qualification so that they can also be given an opportunity. No, the entrance qualifications must be absolutely the same. I therefore want to ask the hon the Acting Minister to treat everyone—even if it is an hon member of Parliament—equally. If anyone is just a little under-qualified, one must say “no” to him, because Piet Meyer said in Parliament that equal artisans must be trained for South Africa. Then the CP will not be able to tell the hon the Acting Minister tomorrow that he has to take these young men out of the Coloured or Black areas, because they can simply be trained “by the way”. We want people who can give their best for South Africa. Men and women in South Africa must be given an opportunity to receive professional training so that they can give their best for our country.

I now come to sanctions and disinvestment. The party I belong to is completely opposed to any form of sanctions against the Republic of South Africa. The hon member for Springbok and I, as well as other hon members of the House of Assembly, had the opportunity to undertake a parliamentary tour of the German-speaking parts of Europe last year. On every occasion people asked us what the CP was doing to South Africa. That party’s policy is to the disadvantage of the whole of South Africa.

The ambassador in Bonn, Mr Retief, gave us very important information. It is not necessary for me to repeat that information in Parliament, but what we heard there was that progress must be made in South Africa with regard to doing away with discrimination. Discrimination must be wiped out of South Africa’s existence completely. If South Africa wants to be acknowledged by the international world, only one thing remains, and that is to do away with those things that hurt other people. That is why I am always proud on such occasions to be able to rise and say that what we are doing is proof of what we are capable of. I am convinced that we can resolve our own problems in South Africa.

I want to express my party’s support for the esteemed Prime Minister of Britain, Mrs Thatcher, for her strong standpoint against disinvestment and sanctions against the RSA. I am convinced, however, that South Africa will come out tops again as we did in the case of the arms embargo in the seventies, and that once again we shall be able to supply the world with what will be manufactured in South Africa.

It is also essential that we be able to compete in the sphere of manpower in the outside world. The RSA has most natural resources which are needed and used in the world. We have to exploit those minerals and process them into secondary products. Those products must then be exported. South Africa must change from a country that sends out raw materials to a country that manufactures. We cannot send our iron ore and all this raw material out and then buy it from countries abroad at great expense. Even if we move slowly, we shall have to move in that direction. I am sure that we shall be able to do so.

I should like to say something about trade unions. I want to address a friendly request to Cosatu and its affiliates not to do the work they are involved in in such a way that the members of those organisations suffer at the end of the day. I have no objection to any trade union which also takes care of its members’ social needs, because only when it does that and when it can prove that it also takes care of its members with regard to that aspect, will it recruit more members.

I said I had a little knowledge of trade unionism; it is not only other people who have that knowledge. I am not saying that other people do not have or never will have that knowledge. We must complement one another. What I know I must share with others, and what I do not know, I will get from others. That is why it is important that we put our heads together and see what will be best for us in the sphere of manpower. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to say something here again.

Mr Chairman, I cannot really follow up on the speech made by the hon member for Vredendal. Certainly I do not find any fault with his dislike for the CP, but what I do find rather surprising is that when he is making appeals for the removal of discrimination and for the return of our country to international acceptance, he directs his attack at the CP. I would think that as regards the actions that take place in this country which relate to discrimination and which affect our position internationally, the Government of the day is possibly even more to blame than the CP, not necessarily in attitudes but certainly in actions.

As regards things which place us in a bad light internationally and bedevil race relations in this country, I think the NP has to take full responsibility for where we stand today. Perhaps we would be 100 times worse off under a CP government, but that does not exonerate this Government, and I would have preferred it if the hon member for Vredendal had seen that quite a lot of the blame lies with those people. Do not make life too easy for them; that is all I am asking him.

You are just as white as any member of the NP. [Interjections.]

Yes, I am very white; I hand the hon member that, and I am fully aware of it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Vredendal takes that as an attack upon him, so be it. That was not intended. I merely wanted to indicate that I think that he should look to the gentlemen sitting on the Government side—unless he regards them as his allies, and as part and parcel … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, the hon member for Vredendal must not carry on in that way.

I would like to appeal to the Government, now that I have established where …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member where he was when the referendum took place?

Where was I? I was here.

What did the hon member vote? Yes or no?

Hon members know exactly how I voted. I voted no. [Interjections.] That has absolutely nothing to do with this attitude or that attitude. All a no-vote said was exactly what those hon members are saying today. They are saying that the tricameral system is a farce. It is not working! [Interjections.]

Those hon members’ own leader says we need a new constitution. So why do we need a new constitution if the present one is working? We said it would not work and those hon members are now saying that it has not worked. Who is right? [Interjections.]

We never said it was working!

Order!

Mr Chairman, if I may continue, I would like to appeal to the hon the Acting Minister and to the Government, in regard to labour relations, to adopt a less confrontationalist approach toward the labour force. I do not know whether they are aware of this but it stands out very clearly in a lot of things that are done that the Government appears to regard the labour force of this country—I am referring specifically to the Black labour force— as an adversary, as a group of people that are on the opposite side to Government. This does appear to be the position.

I will tell hon members why I say this. The hon members, specifically the hon member for Carletonville, dealt with the question of Workers’ Day, May Day. Some hon members say they want to give them a long weekend. Those hon members themselves know the history, as was pointed out by the hon member for Carletonville, of this particular Workers’ Day since 1987. There has been no consistent pattern other than that the Government has tried to place that day on or as close to 1 May as possible without admitting it. They continually say they are not going to give them 1 May as a holiday. They are not going to acknowledge their desire to have a Workers’ Day on the same day as other workers’ organisations throughout the world. They do not want to admit that these people are allowed to identify with the workers of the world, but at the same time, when it comes to practice, they allow these people to have the day on 1 May. Last year it was on 2 May because 1 May was a Sunday. All I am asking the Government is why are they scared to give in to a reasonable request. They can give them a long weekend if they like. [Interjections.]

The hon the Acting Minister says he does not want to politicise this thing any further. He is not politicising it by conceding, but he is politicising it by being confrontational. Then one is being political. Then one is putting them in a confrontational position vis-à-vis Government.

All I am saying on this May Day question is that we should get it right once and for all. Let us say to the workers that we think their request is perfectly reasonable. If they want to identify with the workers of the world, if they want to have a holiday on the same day as they do and even if they want to call it May Day by all means let them do so. It is not going to hurt us. But instead the Government cannot admit that people have legitimate demands. As soon as people make some demand which is not totally in kilter with what the Government wants then there has to be a confrontational situation. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the labour relations legislation which we passed last year, the hon member for Stilfontein will remember all the debate that went on not only within that committee but in all sections of the communities that had anything to do with labour relations. There was enormous unhappiness about the provisions and we warned at that stage that certain of the provisions of the Bill, which was then going to become the Act, were going to cause problems. The hon members will be aware of the problems which have already been caused by section 79(2). Hon members will have read in the paper about the happenings at Haggie Rand about two weeks ago.

Because of the provisions of section 79(2)—and for no other reason—and because of the presumption that a trade union is involved and is responsible for delictual acts, trade unions are refusing to become involved in negotiating whenever an illegal strike occurs. In the Haggie Rand case it is common cause—hon members can speak to anybody about it—that it was a minor dispute. It related to a small section of the work force. However, the trade union was not prepared to become involved and negotiate on behalf of the workers until such time as the employers said they would give them an indemnity against any kind of civil action.

What happened then? The dispute, which should have been resolved within two hours, turned into something which continued for eight days and in the end it cost not only the employer, but the employees and the relationship between those two parties an enormous amount—not just in financial terms, but in terms of goodwill.

We warned against it last year when this legislation was introduced. We said that if they are going to put in this kind of provision which is aimed at keeping the unions in their place; which is aimed at curtailing legitimate union activity; which is aimed at making things tough for the unions, then they are going to run into trouble. Every single lawyer and every single legal organisation—including the Industrial Court—which gave evidence before the committee on this Bill, warned against this sort of thing happening.

The lawyers who gave evidence said that all they were doing for them by passing this piece of legislation was creating the opportunity for more litigation, for more disputes, and that they were becoming richer in the process. This has proved to be true. There are far more litigations, disputes and uncertainty since the amending legislation than before it—far more.

You are sucking it out of your thumb!

No, I am not sucking it out of my thumb. Hon members can speak to anyone in the labour field, to anybody who goes to the Industrial Court and they will see.

There is one other aspect which is certainly not of the magnitude of section 79(2), but if one looks at section 35(3) of the Act, I would like the hon the Acting Minister—or possibly members of the department—to clarify what the intention of the legislator is here.

Section 35(3) stipulates that when one is making an application to a conciliation board, the application has to be lodged within a period of 21 days from the date on which a party to the dispute has notified every other party of the dispute by registered post that a deadlock has been reached.

What is happening in practice is that right at the outset in a lot of these disputes, the employee who has been fired will through his legal adviser or through whoever represents him, advise the employer that there has been an unfair labour practice. He usually states that unless the matter is resolved within a certain period of time, it must be assumed that a deadlock has been reached.

Negotiations will then proceed and there will be further letters to say that a deadlock has been reached in order to try and lay down ultimatums. Those notices by registered post about deadlocks being reached, repeat themselves and it seems that the parties feel at liberty to completely ignore this 21-day clause.

I want the department to clarify whether the 21-day period has to be reckoned from the first such communication by registered post which says that a deadlock has been reached. Unless we can clarify that, this section becomes absolutely meaningless.

I know of instances where applications have been lodged well after the 21-day period, and the department has said that they are not quite sure how to interpret this section. As far as they are concerned, they are appointing a conciliation board.

A further interesting point is that there is no discretion—although there is a discretion for the Director-General to allow an extension of the 90-day period, which is referred to in the subsection. The 21-day period has no such discretion applicable to it. I would like to hear from the hon the Acting Minister what his views are on the interpretation of that section.

I do seem to recall that last year, when we discussed this Bill and when many complaints were made about it, it was indicated that the legislation would be amended from time to time. It was indicated that as soon as areas of difficulty arose further amending legislation would be placed on the Statute Book. Unfortunately I was not here during the earlier part of this debate and therefore I do not know whether any reference has been made to this. I would like to know from the hon the Acting Minister whether any amending legislation is in the offing and I would particularly like to know whether note is being taken of the various areas of difficulty, such as section 79(2).

When the amending legislation is introduced I sincerely hope that the Government will adopt an approach in which they will treat the labour force as if they are on the same side and in which they will recognise the aspirations of the labour force. I hope they design the legislation and the processes which fall under the legislation to work in such a way as to try and accommodate legitimate demands, rather than to try and contain or curtail trade union activities. I think that if we cannot get away from this confronta-tionalist approach, we are just going to find that any law that we make with that philosophy in mind is going to be negative rather than positive.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Groote Schuur, who is also a member of our joint committee.

I would firstly like to congratulate the hon the Acting Minister of Manpower and welcome him to this very difficult and challenging portfolio. At the same time I would like to wish him well.

I would also like to place on record my thanks to the former Minister for his untiring and unselfish contribution to this department. We welcome our new Director-General, Adv J D Fourie. I think we have acquired a man who is very learned in this field and we are certainly proud of him. I would also like to thank the chairman of the joint committee, who acted very wisely and calmly at all times, with the result that this committee was able to produce some very good legislation.

I do not want to get caught up in the tug of war which is taking place between the CP and the NP and thereby lose the essence of this vitally important Vote that has been presented to us and ignore the role the department has been playing in our country.

In my opinion the Department of Manpower is a very important department because it administers eight important Parliamentary Acts. Maybe I should mention these because I do not know how many people are aware that these Acts directly involve and perhaps have a day-to-day effect on the people of the working class— practically all our people in this country. These Acts are: The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941; the Labour Relations Act, 1956; the Wage Act, 1957; the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1966; the Manpower Training Act, 1981; the Guidance and Placement Act, 1981; the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, 1983; and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1983. With these Acts the department covers a very wide spectrum in so far as the handling of human beings in this country is concerned.

These Acts provide the necessary machinery in an endeavour to provide all the people in this country at their places of work with some measure of goodwill, understanding, co-operation and consensus at all levels where such human power is utilised. The big question is whether we are really achieving this goal successfully. This department’s joint committee spent something like 18 months over the past few years trying to bring about suitable labour legislation which would be acceptable to the employers and the employees. I do not, however, want to elaborate, moralise or philosophise on the achievements of those labour Acts. I do, however, want to mention that we have not included the domestic workers and farm workers in the Act.

I want to state categorically that when we in the joint committee looked at this Act, we did not intentionally forget farm workers and domestic servants: we took them into consideration. All I want to say is that I wish to record that they are not forgotten, but that much is being done in this direction. I want to say that we are at present unobtrusively doing some very good work, and praise has to go to the people who are involved in this work. Very shortly, perhaps before this Parliament goes into recess, I hope we may be able to announce something.

I want to sound a word of warning to this Government that our labour force is a very important cog in the entire political, economical and social spectrum, because it is the key to the survival of our economic structures in our country. It requires a carefully planned and well-advanced programme which utilises our human resources to afford this country the growth it so desperately needs in the years to come. This can only be achieved by making use of all its people, irrespective of their colour. It is no use having all the political power without economic power. It is no use making great speeches with beautiful phrases, and passing Bill after Bill which seem to get constipated in the corridors and passages of Parliament.

The trouble with the people of South Africa is that they think that we are living in a First World situation, but in actual fact this is the Third World. In every respect this is very true, because in a country with a population of more or less 30 million people, 6 million live above the breadline. I will leave the rest for hon members to analyse.

The hon the Acting Minister referred to Russia and mentioned that Russia is now rethinking its popular military power and other ways of maintaining the country. I want to associate myself with the hon the Acting Minister and perhaps tell him the reason why Russia is thinking along these lines. One’s military power and one’s political power, without economic power and without food, is useless. It is like raising arms against the troubled waters of the sea. This is what has brought Russia to its knees. That is why Russia is now looking in another direction. Let us therefore learn from the mistakes other countries have made and let us not make them as well.

What is also of concern to me is that the training programme seems to have been reduced over the years. However, at the same time I am quite concerned that the unemployment situation among all the race groups in South Africa has not decreased. I believe these are two elements that have to be put on the scale so that we can weigh them up evenly. I have some figures here and they reveal that in 1986 we trained 10 311 persons, in 1987, 17 100 and in 1988, 14 766. I am concerned about this decrease when there is a need for artisans and trained people in this country to fill the many vacuums that exist for trained and skilled manpower. Therefore one finds that we have not achieved the growth of 2,2% per annum that this country needs. If that growth does not take place, I am afraid that we may be taking two steps backward and one step forward, and we will not be able to catch up the backlog and the increase in the population will soon catch up with us.

Finally, I also just want to touch on privatisation. Someone did mention earlier about this being done at grassroots level. As far as privatisation is concerned this is a monster that seems to be coming up very fast and we can lose sight of this if we are not careful. I do not believe that we should change merely for the sake of change. The programme of privatisation should take place in an orderly fashion. The Government of this country must not pass on an ailing situation and then later say: “Well, we privatised it and that is the result.”

The country must be very aware of this and the Government must retain responsibility for a certain amount of its capital development in this country. To pass everything on to the private sector will not be in the best interests of all concerned and in my opinion a certain amount of privatisation is taking place for reasons best known to the people that are doing this.

I want to know what benefit the ordinary taxpayer will derive from privatisation at the end of the day. That is the answer we all want. How will our people that are in need of employment, shelter and ordinary, basic day-to-day requirements ultimately benefit from this privatisation? We also have to be mindful of the fact that it is of no use to sell all the facilities that we have to the private sector when we ourselves have failed to bring about some kind of relief for our people in this regard.

I would also like the hon the Acting Minister to indicate to me in his reply whether our personnel training programme has stopped or whether it is continuing very slowly. I would like to know what the case is in that regard. If there are any reasons I would also like to know what they are. In my opinion there are many people that are looking for jobs and that are still unemployed. The reasons for this are well-known to us and to the department. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Mariannhill. He is also a member of the joint committee. We have sat together there in the past and I hope that we shall also sit together in that particular committee in future. He always makes valuable contributions.

Before turning to my speech, I would like to refer to what the hon member for Groote Schuur said here today. In my opinion we can expect a kind of alliance between the DP and the CP in order to destroy the NP, regardless of what it is going to cost. However, if one should go by what the hon member for Groote Schuur said, another factor is that the DP still regards the hon members of the other Houses as political infants. His whole speech was characterised by an old colonial, British, imperialistic, paternalistic attitude. I would like to state clearly that his patronising speech was an insult to the dignity of hon members of the other Houses.

*I want to associate myself with what was said by other hon members about the hon the Acting Minister, the new Director-General and the personnel of the Department of Manpower. It is a privilege to serve on that joint committee. I give hon members the assurance that it is certainly one of the most pleasant committees on which to serve. It is one committee where all the components truly—and I say it with great frankness—co-operate to the advantage of South Africa and where party political profits disappear into thin air.

Before I refer to the industrial court as disputesettling machinery, I also wish to react to what hon members of the CP said here today. I should like to refer to what the hon member for Randfontein said here. One of the things the hon member said by implication was that the CP would protect the White worker by means of laws. He spoke about the NP’s training schemes with a degree of contempt.

That is not true either!

Of course it is true. That hon member said that the NP wanted to train people as if it was the only method. The contribution of the hon member for Randfontein was nothing less than an insult to the White worker. He underestimates their ability to compete with people of colour. They—he and his party—want to protect the White worker by means of laws, which is a total insult to the abilities of the White worker.

The hon member for Randfontein had a lot to say here today about the politicising of trade unions. He says that we have recently been dominated by politically inspired Black trade unions. The hon member should listen to this because I think they have a division problem in their ranks again. He says that the trade unions tell the Government: Look we have come to where we are now. We are not going to listen to you any further. We are now going all out to try to obtain political rights for our members. He went on to elaborate on the politicisation of trade unions.

That was the hon member for Carletonville.

I beg your pardon! It is not that hon member whom I am referring to but the hon member for Carletonville. I am sorry about that. In any event the hon member for Carletonville did speak negatively about the political rights of unions. Am I right? It seems so. [Interjections.] He did speak negatively. He said that trade unions must not be given political rights.

Black trade unions! [Interjections.]

Yes, Black trade unions. He says that Black trade unions must not be given political rights. However, what does his kindred spirit say? The hon member for Carletonville might be part of the one faction in the CP, but there is another faction in the CP. I am going to point out to hon members who the other faction in the CP is. I have already said it, and I have been waiting since last year for a reply and have not received it yet.

How many factions are there in the NP?

The hon member for Carletonville must keep quiet and listen to what I tell him. Last year—on 11 February 1988—the hon member for Ermelo said the following about political rights and trade unions. Listen to what he had to say! He continued with his argument and said:

Now this is when the Black finds himself in a White area. In the CP state they are visualising, the Blacks are not going to have the franchise. He went on to say:

That is the Black man—

Now I do not know. The hon member for Lichtenburg says that the CP policy is crystal clear. Yet I do not understand it. The hon member for Ermelo wants to give Blacks political rights by means of trade unions, while the hon member for Carletonville refuses to give Black trade unions any political rights. Now I do not know. I want to leave them at that and turn to the industrial court in the few minutes still available.

Since its inception in its present form in 1979, the industrial court has become an increasingly acceptable forum for the settling of disputes in the labour sphere. The increasing popularity of this court is clearly apparent from the number of cases already heard before the court. I am not going to announce figures and numbers at this stage, but before I say more about that matter I just want to say that this new labour policy of the Government, which included the establishment of the industrial court and an absolutely new labour policy, is truly indicative of reform. The industrial court is one of these elements by means of which important reforms have been brought about in South Africa.

Interpersonal relationships in the place of work were characterised in the past by old and obsolete colonial paternalism. That is what we shall experience again if the DP or the CP ever come to power. By the establishment of the industrial court, and especially the recent amendment to the Labour Relations Act, this paternalism has finally been destroyed. The Government has now given recognition to the human dignity of people in the work places among the various races in various ways. This harmony in the work-place has rippled outwards to bring harmony to numerous other relationships. The basis of these improved attitudes is to be found in the Government’s reform initiatives.

The hon member for Groote Schuur also asked what the Government was doing. He was a member of that joint committee. It is a positive move of the Government to create an instrument to improve interpersonal relations in the workplace. The hon member sat on that committee and made a valuable contribution. However, the minute he stands up here, he tries to make political capital out of the situation. That is the dilemma of those people. [Interjections.]

The amendment of the Labour Relations Act is remarkable in that it is a positive attempt by the Government to improve relations, to eliminate racial discrimination and to provide support for a balanced society. As a result of the Government establishing the Labour Relations Act, and due to the fact that the Industrial Court is functioning effectively, the Government has reacted positively with legislation which compels people to treat one another decently in the work-place.

With respect to the Industrial Court, there were almost 4 000 cases in 1988 compared with the 3 500 of the previous year. Of these cases that were before the Industrial Court, 3 500 were there for restitution orders. Of these 1 400 were settled in various stages, 700 were withdrawn and 1 200 were either granted or refused. With respect to alleged unfair labour practices, there were 1 600 such cases. Of these 400 were settled in various stages, 650 are in the process of completion and 200 have been withdrawn.

This Government has done more than any Government before it, and also more than any Government after it will ever be able to dream of doing, to bring about industrial peace in this country.

Mr Chairman, I would first of all like to refer to what I consider to have been an uncalled-for and unwarranted reference earlier this afternoon by the hon member for Groote Schuur to my colleague the hon member for Vredendal.

*I am pleased to see that the hon member Dr Zach de Beer, one of the three leaders of the DP, is here this afternoon. I want to start off by saying that these leaders should talk to their colleagues. They should realise that we have the same right as anyone else to be in this Parliament. We have the same right to express our feelings. We do not need anyone to lead us by the nose and to dictate to us what we have to say to whom, where and when. [Interjections.]

It has been recorded that my hon leader welcomed their formation. We welcome them as part of what is necessary to move to the new South Africa. After all this has been said, I want to say that something is worrying us. When one works with people who have no previous experience of the Parliamentary system in South Africa, one is inclined to be paternalistic. It is something that has to stop if we want good order and if we want to get to where we want to be. I repeat that the hon leader concerned should talk to his people. Perhaps it was done unwittingly, but for that very reason one does not expect it. [Interjections.]

†Our party was established in June, 1969. We have therefore been around for some twenty years. We may not have been in Parliament but we have established ourselves along the road. We know when and where to attack whoever or whatever.

*We shall address the CP, because we feel that, to a certain extent, they are trying to live in the past. It is a past that South Africa can no longer afford. On the other hand we shall also try to address those who want to put words in our mouths. We shall also address the NP in due course if we believe that they are not moving fast enough. This is what we have been doing for the past few days. My colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development did it excellently as far as the farming community is concerned.

†We believe that South Africa can only get to where it wants to be, both on the factory floor and in all other facets of life, if people learn to accept each other as equals. We notice that there is a tremendous increase in the number of Black scholars who will be entering the job market pretty soon. Jobs will have to be provided for them. Possibly more that anything else, the hon the Minister’s big dilemma will be to encourage new entrepreneurs on the one hand, and on the other to use the facilities of his department to get industry going on a tremendous scale in this country.

The department that the hon the Minister has now taken charge of has been a forerunner of change in South Africa in the past, but my party has said that the changes that have come are not enough. We understand why Black trade unions have a dual role to play. We cannot side with them when they seem to be propagating, either directly or indirectly, acts which could lead to violence. We do know that they find themselves in a situation where the communities that they represent have no realistic political machinery in the highest form of government, therefore they have no alternative but to make use of their trade unions to get where they want to be.

*We already find … [Interjections.] On my right I heard the same thing being said about Britain and what the trade unions do there. We have a totally different situation in South Africa; there has never been a group of people in Britain who have been politically denied the right to vote. We shall simply have to accept the fact that the trade unions in South Africa are also going to play a political role.

They are still politicised there.

I said so the other day and I shall say so again: We can enforce the laws of this country but we shall never be able to stop people from using any instrument to attain their rightful position in the country. [Interjections.]

†We already find that more than 70% of our factories are occupied by Black workers. I want to urge the hon the Minister to get his department to urge employers to increase the number of people of colour in supervisory and managerial positions. I know a lot of progress has been made in the last couple of years but it is still not enough. In the first place, until people are seen to be in senior positions we will have trouble on the factory floor and in the second place, these people are needed to be able to communicate effectively with others.

While I am making this appeal, I would also like to appeal to the mining houses not to begin large scale retrenchments in the industry. We understand quite well that a drop of about R1 000 per kilogram in the price of gold has occurred in the past few months and we understand that the industry is faced with the choice of either mining profitably or not mining at all. We understand all that but we became concerned when a mining house, namely Gencor, announced last week that 5 000 of its employees at various mines are going to be retrenched. We are concerned about the spiralling effect this will have on the industry as a whole and the country as a whole. We must not do anything in the marketplace which will increase the conflict situation in South Africa any further. Like I have said, while we understand the whole question of profitability in the mining industry we believe that at the end of the day it also has a very definite social responsibility because if the social situation deteriorates to such an extent that the mines cannot operate, then the mining houses will be the losers in any case.

I welcome the new incentives in the clothing industry that were announced recently. While I say that we welcome the new national policy of the rag trade and especially the effect it will have on the creation of new jobs, there are certain things which are worrying.

We believe that, while on the one hand creating jobs, it will also inflate the prices of non-fashion garments and the cost structures of smaller manufacturers who do not export and cannot benefit from export incentives. However, we also believe that this new policy must be welcomed.

If at all possible the hon the Acting Minister must urge his colleagues in the other departments that are concerned with industry incentives to extend this to as many industries as possible. Especially in our situation where we have so many people who need so many jobs we have to get this going as soon as possible if we want stability.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Diamant. Even if we do not always agree, I am very thankful that we have this forum where we can speak to one another.

On the issue of farmers and trade unions, concern is being voiced from different quarters regarding the position of farm workers. The farmer himself gets sniped at by trade unions, their tentacles slowly but surely reaching into his matters as well, especially via the industrial involvement of the trade unions. It is entirely wrong to paint the farmers into a corner. They, more than many others, have faced up to their social responsibility for decades, often beyond the call of duty.

What is the position today? The Wage Act and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act do not apply to agriculture. The Natal Agricultural Union encourages farmers to pay fair wages to their workers, within the limits of affordability, and to enter into a service agreement with their workers which provides for reasonable basic conditions of employment. Those conditions of employment that are important are the number of working hours, overtime, working on holidays and Sundays, leave arrangements and sick leave.

Considering the type of agriculture that is being practised in Natal, it is true to say that a great deal of work has been done here. This is especially true in the sugar and timber industries. Regular courses in manpower management are being offered by these industries, as well as by consultants in the field. Brilliant psychologists, such as Dr Arnold Moll, and others have been used to great advantage to train the farmer himself so that he can apply motivation and more incremental job opportunities for his workers. There is still a need for farmers to make better use of these courses and also that the knowledge obtained through these courses be put into practice.

The SAAU is presently negotiating with the Government for a more significant assistance scheme for labour housing. The SAAU is also investigating the possibility that funds could be made available through the SA Housing Trust for this purpose, and this has already been partially initiated by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development.

A serious problem has always been that farm workers who have reached pensionable age are often left without a livelihood except to the extent to which a State pension is available to them. With this in mind the SAAU has recently developed a retirement scheme for farm workers which will ensure the retired farm worker an adequate pension. Of course, many individual groups have had group pension schemes in operation for many years.

On the matter of education I want to mention the following. Approximately 47% of all Black scholars receive their primary education in farm schools. These farm schools are generally erected on land that farmers made available for that purpose, free of charge. Normally the school buildings are also erected by the farmer himself.

Organised agriculture has welcomed the report by the Department of Education and Training concerning the provision of education for rural Black children. We look forward to the speedy implementation of the recommendations contained in this report which has been accepted by the Government.

Let us look at the role of agriculture in the provision of employment. According to the Economic Advisory Council of the State President, commercial agriculture provides work to approximately 15% of the economically active population of the RSA.

In other words, 1,3 million people are employed there. If one considers their dependents, one is looking at providing a livelihood to between 5 and 6 million people. What does this mean to the individual farmer?

On average every farmer provides a living for 100 people. In 1980, 47% or approximately 11 million people were resident on the platteland. If one considers that in most rural areas agriculture is the single largest generator of income, then a large part of the population is directly or indirectly supported by agriculture. The total wage bill constitutes approximately 30% of total current expenditure on farms. We are therefore looking at a bill of approximately R3 billion.

Over the past years there have been several investigations into the position of agriculture in the RSA. It is significant that in each of these investigations the importance of practising good labour relations and good manpower management on farms is emphasised. A well-motivated and well-cared for labourer is an asset to a farm. Such a worker is not only more productive, but contributes greatly to the day to day management of the farm.

The first action on the part of agriculture to provide for a better equipped and more stable labour force, was to establish training facilities. We have a number of these, such as Kromme Place, Mount Edgecombe, Timms, Boskop and the Midlands Centre. After consultation and deliberation, a document with guidelines on the conditions of service for farm employees was published to provide the Natal farmer with a standardised guide for basic conditions on farms. The document is in line with common law principles and makes provision for a service agreement which includes the previously mentioned conditions of employment.

Another important recommendation which it includes is the establishment of management committees on the farm. These management committees will enable employers and employees to communicate in a more formal way. They will not only facilitate the solving of disputes that may arise between employer and employee, but could play a major role in the day to day manpower management on the farm. Hon members have spoken about a working group consisting of the Department of Manpower, the SAAU and …

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member if it would not be better to have a management committee appointed by the farmers’ association or union, rather than an individual farmer? Would the hon member support such a management or workshop committee?

On the farm?

On the farm.

That is what I am talking about.

Yes, but these committees should be appointed by organised agriculture, rather than the individual farmer.

Mr Chairman, the answer is at hand. The task of this working group was to look at the working conditions of these people. I have just been addressing the fact that these people are now in a position where they can constitute committees on the farms so that they can regulate their own conditions of employment in negotiation with the employer.

But that is victimisation!

That is not victimisation. So far meetings between the Department of Manpower, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates have been held. They have been successful in the sense that organised agriculture could present its case and inform those present about the positive work being done, thereby removing many misconceptions.

Every now and again someone makes a fuss about one or other aspect of farm labour. With the aforegoing facts that I have raised, surely there is enough evidence of the responsible manner in which the agricultural sector is dealing with the whole question. Agriculture is far more complex than commerce and industry, with each sector having particular labour requirements, as well as a varied ability to pay good wages. The Government will have to be extremely cautious when it comes to legislation. I believe that Government has been very shrewd not to regulate that situation up till now.

Mr Chairman, we have now reached the end of this debate, and it is a pleasure for me to thank hon members for their participation. Let me say at once that if I cannot properly reply to any of the direct questions put to me by hon members, I shall gladly furnish them with written replies in due course.

The hon member for Greytown also referred to farm workers. What he advocated was that we should not be over-hasty, but that the whole matter should take its natural course within the context of agriculture. On that score I cannot disagree with him at all. I also think—as the hon member Mr Redinger mentioned here—that when there are natural developments emanating from this working group, composed of organised agriculture and interested hon members of this Parliament, we can ultimately reach a point, by way of negotiation, which will not only give the worker in agriculture, but also the agriculturist himself, a better dispensation.

I also want to refer the hon member for Greytown to the fact that in agriculture we already have situations in which there are associations of employees who, in terms of agreements with their employers, negotiate all their rights which are on the Statute Book in accordance with the labour legislation of which they are not a part. They do participate in those rights in terms of agreements. This already exists in South Africa and can be taken further.

The hon member referred to the question of trade unions in the public sector. In this regard negotiations are being conducted between Public Servants and the Commission for Administration. I do think, however, that the best example of the organisation of labour within the public sector is perhaps to be found most specifically in the SA Transport Services, with its recent establishment of a labour board. Other public sector bodies are also looking with great interest at this specific body, particularly its functioning, and at the legislation we have introduced in that regard. †The hon member also referred to the utilisation of manpower in our fight against inflation. I agree with him entirely, not only with regard to our manpower, but also as regards our capital, machinery and all other resources. They must all be utilised to their full potential in this country.

*The hon member for Randfontein also took part in this debate, but I must say that the hon member did not speak with any great conviction today. He gave me the impression, to some extent, that spiritually he was not quite in tune with the party of which he is a member. [Interjections.]

As a result of the fact that we deal with this Committee’s functions in the way we do, there is no need for us to have uninformed members of Parliament. All the documents we make available to this Committee, we also make available to all the hon members of the other Committees.

Besides, we have a method in accordance with which everyone is supplied with information by our study groups. I do not think it is possible to inform every member of Parliament every day about everything that is going on in Parliament. It is not possible. It is therefore important for us to make certain documents available to hon members so that they can make a study of them and, in a short space of time, state their problems here. I must say that I think it works well, because there are very few problems, which came to light in this debate, which cannot easily be solved, and here I am also referring to the administrative aspects. In this debate we are addressing policy aspects, and I think there is enough time for that.

The hon member said that his party was confining itself, in particular, to the rights of the White worker. There we are diametrically opposed. The NP believes that if one wants to develop this country to its full potential, and it must indeed develop to its full potential, one must treat all the requests of all the workers in this country on a just and compassionate basis. [Interjections.]

The hon member also said that the NP was obsessed with integration. Today I want to ask him whether he can deny that the South African economy is totally integrated. [Interjections.] Totally integrated. That is not an obsession! It is a fact! The South African economy is totally integrated. If the hon member therefore wants those who are dependent on the Blacks for their business, to be kicked out, then nothing would be left!

Only he would be left! [Interjections.]

The hon member is now saying the NP must make use of all kinds of gimmicks in its constitutional set-up. Let me tell the hon member what, in reality, a gimmick is.

The CP! [Interjections.]

The CP’s linking policy involving the homelands and Black people living in the Republic.

Which the NP believed in all these years!

No, if the hon member remembers correctly, he will know that we agreed, when he was still one of us, that it could not work. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member who it is who also says it cannot work. Read what is said by the two hon members for Ermelo and Bethal. They say the linking policy is a gimmick. They say that thinking one could have people here who would exercise their political rights elsewhere is a gimmick. [Interjections.]

We therefore have no choice. The political rights of Black people must be addressed. [Interjections.]

On what basis?

Surely we have made that clear, and hon members would do well to read the NP’s policy on Black people and Black political rights. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Acting Minister must not allow himself to be provoked into moving beyond the ambit of the Vote. The hon the Acting Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the political rights of the Black labour force is an important aspect which this Government will vigorously yet circumspectly address in conjunction with those people.

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Delegates expressed concern about the high rate of unemployment and he pleaded for labour-intensive undertakings. The employment schemes which the department has put forward indicate that that is exactly what we have in mind. We have also used those employment schemes to build low-cost housing—which is labour-intensive—dams, roads and clinics.

We can never stop in our endeavours and the point is that in a country with high Third World potential, I am afraid that we will have to live with a certain degree of unemployment for a rather long time. We must, however, never stop in our endeavours.

*The hon members for Maraisburg and Kuru-man also referred to the decrease in the number of apprentices. The hon member for Kuruman referred to the fact that there were a large number of matriculants—people who are being trained. I briefly examined the figures, and there were by far more Black matriculants who completed their studies last year than all the other groups put together. There is consequently a vast manpower potential that can be developed.

There is an interesting aspect of this, however, as far as young Black people are concerned. These young people who have been trained are not yet as readily available for the so-called “blue collar” jobs. Proof of this is to be found at the George Thabor Technical College in Soweto where we have not yet achieved the desired success with the training of technicians and artisans from the Black community. There is gradual progress, but not the degree of progress we should like to see.

I also want to tell the hon member for Maraisburg that in the amending legislation on training, which we hope to pilot through Parliament during the next session, attention will be given to the question of modular training. The subject, as such, will be divided up into modules, and a person can qualify for the specific modular level he has reached.

We could also deal with the point the hon member for Koedoespoort made by saying that the artisan could be more of a specialist and that that person who has been trained on a modular basis could play a supportive role.

That is a fragmentation of the work of an artisan! [Interjections.]

I think that modular training will specifically promote the productive employment of labour.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis referred to equal opportunities as a method of achieving labour peace. I thank the hon member for his contribution. He also referred to security in hostels, and I can tell him that our laws apply to hostels too. The body he referred to, ie Nosa, is a private body, however, and I would advise him perhaps to refer the hostels he had in mind to them.

I referred to the hon member for Koedoespoort’s proposals in connection with modular training. That is precisely what he asked for, ie that workers acting in a supportive role should be introduced to allow artisans, who are in short supply, more scope.

The hon member for Groote Schuur also made a contribution. Perhaps he regretted the “support” he tried to give other hon members, because they approved the background of the party from which he came and of which he is still a member. The hon member said a strange thing here. He said that we recognised that the tricameral Parliament was a failure. The hon member was dreaming! [Interjections.] He was dreaming! [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many comments being made. The hon the Acting Minister may proceed.

The fact of the matter is that to this day there has not been a single proposal to prove that this tricameral Parliament is not the only starting point for political reform. Those hon members use all kinds of fine words and expressions. One of the three leaders said yesterday that they also still had to work out how political rights should be granted. [Interjections.] We acknowledge the fact that this tricameral Parliament is not by any means perfect. All of us would concede as much, but we say there is no other starting point. People of colour have participated in this Parliament and have now achieved the political expertise they would not otherwise have achieved. [Interjections.] We have accepted one another here, and from this point we can move forward. I am telling hon members that negotiation within the system is, in point of fact, effective negotiation. [Interjections.]

†The hon member referred to the shifting of onus of proof under section 79 in cases in the industrial court. It is important to understand section 79. It gives protection to all the parties— to the unions, the employer organisations and their members—following the legal route. It is only when people act unlawfully that the presumption clause comes into operation. If this section were to be removed, it would be possible for organisations to get away with unlawful practices, purely on technical grounds. Unions and other organisations should therefore only fear this section if they act unlawfully. It is evident what the lawful way is. Why not follow it?

The hon member referred to section 35(3) and asked me for a decision. It is evidently something that needs some consideration and I will certainly go into it and let the hon member have a reply.

Amending legislation is not being considered at this very moment. We have not received any representations from the unions, from management or from the Industrial Court in that connection, but should we receive any, we will of course consider them.

The hon member for Mariannhill wished me well. I thank him very much. He also sounded a word of warning that the way we handle our labour force is one of the most important ingredients for growth in South Africa. I agree entirely with him and we will certainly go forward in strength, bettering labour relations in this country and coming to an understanding with our work force. That is important.

As far as training is concerned—that is why I am glad I could make the announcement today—it is indeed a high priority. I add again that we need purposeful training, training of people which will qualify them to step into jobs.

*The hon member for Vredendal referred to the good work done by the Rural Foundation. I want to thank him very sincerely for that. I also want to endorse those sentiments of his. When we speak about our work force in agriculture, progress is important, as far as those communities are concerned too, in order to allow people to make a decent living. The hon member made an appeal to every worker in South Africa to put South Africa first. He advocated equal opportunities by means of equal training. I want to give the hon member the assurance that with the bursary scheme we have announced, selection will be solely on merit. I thank the hon member for the standpoint he adopted in opposition to sanctions and disinvestment, and I endorse that. The hon member for Diamant really put the hon member for Groote Schuur in his place. The time for paternalism is past. It is humiliating, and the hon member has now heard it from the horse’s mouth. The Black man is now telling hon members of the DP: “Get off my back.”

What does he say to you?

The Great Indaba is in progress!

The hon member for Diamant said that the Department of Manpower was leading the way in the process of reform. We are not shying away from that. In the labour field the NP is also the exponent of reform, because it is no use hon members using fine words and becoming euphoric in what they want to do or say and in the advice they give people, if they cannot come to light with anything in practice. [Interjections.] That is the NP’s function, and it does not shy away from doing this in a responsible fashion.

The hon member also referred to a trade union as a political mechanism. The Government acknowledges the fact that Black people’s political rights must receive urgent attention. That is precisely what will be involved in most of the politics of the future. For that reason we are inviting Black people to the negotiating table, and for the same reason we cannot hold discussions with the ANC, because they advocate violence.

†The hon member referred to the retrenchment of workers in the mining industry and to the profitability of mines. That underlines the responsibility that trade unions and employers have to keep the cost factor as low as possible in their negotiations and to keep those mines in operation.

*The hon member referred to the incentive measures implemented in the clothing export industry. I am glad that is possible, because it also acts as a stimulus for the smaller trader. When the other traders’ products are exported, there is a greater demand for the smaller traders’ products which are not a part of the export market.

I should like to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North for his contribution. He referred, in particular, to the importance of the Industrial Court. In my opinion we can safely say today that the Industrial Court has, in fact, played a major role in bringing about peace in the labour field and in acting as a safety valve which allows people to press for their rights. That is a very important element of labour reform. The hon member also referred to human dignity and interpersonal relations as contributing factors to labour peace. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

†The hon member Mr Redinger referred to the position of the farm worker. I thank him for his contribution. He referred to the important role of agriculture as an employer and mentioned that there are 1,3 million workers in that industry. That underlines the fact which I mentioned earlier that when we deal with the rights of agricultural workers and when unions are formed, it must be done with great circumspection so as not to unduly disturb this industry. I agree that a well trained work force is a big asset for agriculture and I will endeavour to make just that possible.

*Hon members referred to the question of job creation and training. I want to refer to the job-creation and training programmes administered by this department and say that since the scheme was introduced, a total of 99 million man-days have been worked. Not only has this scheme brought relief, by way of temporary job opportunities, to large numbers of unemployed, but it has also established permanent social assets. As in the past, the Department of Manpower has again made use of the services of training contractors in the private sector to provide the training. For this purpose approximately 450 training contracts have been negotiated, with training contractors offering courses in approximately 700 different job categories throughout the length and breadth of the country. During the past financial year 235 000 unemployed have received some or other form of training in terms of this scheme.

In conclusion I should like …

Hear, hear!

That hon member can say “hear, hear!” because he has learnt something today. [Interjections.] In the past 10 years—if one looks back on developments in the labour field—one sees that there has, in fact, been phenomenal development as far as our labour force is concerned. As far as the basic rights of workers are concerned, we find this in the form of free association, in the formation of trade unions and in collective bargaining. In this process the Government has taken a back seat, merely providing the ground rules in terms of which this can be done. This is a sound basic philosophy in terms of which this important sector in our national economy can develop.

If we look back even further, we also see that we have, actually in an unconventional manner, made a major contribution to the creation of jobs, firstly by way of deregulation which has, secondly, created jobs in all fields by way of the training of those who are unemployed. That is a singular milestone, if one looks back over the past 10 years. Finally, it is with great pride and compassion that we can view the worker as a human being.

Productivity is actually a small component of what goes to make up an efficient and loyal worker. This brings me back to what we said to one another this afternoon, and that is that productivity should be linked to management. A competent manager knows that a worker is not an emotionless machine that simply produces. He knows that a worker is someone who is entitled to human dignity. He knows that a worker lives in a certain milieu, for example within a certain family context, and that he is a man with children whom he wants to see making progress at school.

In looking back, we say that there is a great deal we still have to do. We say that there are probably many mistakes we have made, but we are also saying that there is a great deal we can be thankful for.